Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 June	8 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. czar 06:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Shaffer

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

No significant coverage per WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree that the article fails WP:ENT. I couldn't find any reliable sources and he does not seem to have had significant roles in the productions that he's credited in. --Suonii180 (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

State Research Institute Kristall

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

It had a couple of explosions that got coverage, but isn't notable. Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can be confused with Kristall, the diamond-polishing factory in Smolensk. Hotspur23 (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 23:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder if there was ever a ru.wiki article and if that was deleted? I can’t read Russian sources but found nothing in English except news about the explosions. Mccapra (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep 30K Google hits for Gosudarstvenny Nauchno-Issledovatelskiy Institut. Are we missing something here? I was trying to sift through these but this really demands someone more familiar with the topic. [1] More than willing to change my !vote if such a person arrives, please ping me. Ifnord (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pink Triangle Press. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PinkType

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

Article about an organization, not reliably sourced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. The primary notability claim on offer here is that the organization existed, and the sourcing consists primarily of the self-published newsletters of directly affiliated organizations being cited only to metaverify those direct affiliations. The only source here that's actually fully independent of the organization is a glancing namecheck of its existence on one page of an 875-page historical timeline, which is not enough coverage to singlehandedly get this over the bar all by itself if it's the best we can do. We're not just looking for sources which verify that it existed: we're looking for sources that offer detailed and substantive analysis of its significance, but those are entirely lacking here. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 23:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pink Triangle Press as the sourcing isn’t sufficient to support a stand alone article. Mccapra (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CrossCharge

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

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

Obvious G11 created by clear COI account, declined by DGG on the basis that it would require AfD. So again, here we are.

Sources presented in the article fail WP:CORPDEPTH badly, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up absolutely zip. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

neither corpdeath nor Before is relevant to G11. For asubject like this, I want others to hve a look also. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just don't see what puts an obvious piece of corporate spam in need of a full AfD when G11 exists for just such things. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The former Green Dot Charging company now appears to be trading as ConnectMyEV, and their conductive charging system appears to be similarly named as ConnectMyEV rather than CrossCharge. [2], so I have added another Find-Sources above. AllyD (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article by Evcharging describing a start-up company's proposition, with the text featuring superlatives about their product being the first and safest such product, maximising convenience, etc., without reliable 3rd party sources. Aside from routine listings, searches find a 2015 brief Q&A with the company founder [3] and a February 2018 announcement about the venture arm of Stanley Black & Decker taking a minority stake in the company [4] but I am not finding the independent coverage which would be needed (WP:PRODUCT / WP:NCORP) to sustain an article here, even if pruned of promotional wording. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karan (film)

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to IMDb and to a site which purports to confirm the songs on the soundtrack. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a plot summary, which the article lacks, but zilch anywhere near WP:RS. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

(I regret to say that I have another hundred or so articles of this quality to put up for discussion. The creator, User:Magipur, blocked in 2016, whose Talk Page is no thing of beauty, could write this sort of article in 2 or 3 minutes. Due diligence for AFD takes me 10 or 15.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 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. "Nothing is gained from deletion" is not a policy-based rationale to keep, especially in the face of a lack of in-depth sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Grantham

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

Lack of WP:SIGCOV – subject does not meet WP:NACTOR, which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films". Article (which has been tagged since 2018) could be redirected to The Last House on the Left (1972 film), her only notable role. Muzilon (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Muzilon (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, very notable movie, but actor did not have sustained career. Caro7200 (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough, and nothing is gained by deletion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Significant coverage is limited to her role in just one film (Last House). A couple of trivial mentions of her work on obscure low-budget/porn movies does not meet the threshold of WP:NACTOR, which requires significant roles in multiple notable films. Muzilon (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure why a relist is necessary. 2 votes to redirect (including me as nominator), 1 to delete, and only 1 to keep. Nobody has attempted to improve the article (which has had a "notability" tag for two years) with references to reliable sources – probably because such sources don't exist. Consensus is to redirect. Muzilon (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable actor. I don't see the point of redirect when she has done so little and is so little know. scope_creep^Talk 23:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Japan House

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

Non-notable cultural center. Lacks sufficient sourcing to substantiate notability. User:Namiba 01:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 01:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 01:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 01:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia has other articles on other cultural centers, like Japanese Cultural and Community Center of Washington, German-American Institute, Nuremberg, and Yupiit Piciryarait Cultural Center. When should a cultural center be considered notable? - HenryMP02 ^TALK 21:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When it has multiple, independent, non-trivial sources covering it in detail per WP:GNG. The existence of something doesn't make it notable.--User:Namiba 22:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has 3 independent sources in the article already, as in "independent from the Univeristy of Illinois administration". Two are from the Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette, there seem to be at least three more from this source. The third is from the Daily Illini which is the University of Illinois' independent student newspaper. There's likely more sources related to Nick Offerman's close connection to JH. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:07, 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]

There is one news story from the local paper that covers the organization at any depth. It doesn't pass WP:GNG. I would support merging relevant information to the University page.--User:Namiba 19:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:58, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) feminist | freedom isn't free 02:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gentle Intruder

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

Possible non-notable film. Couldn't find third-party sources for the film beyond the lone reference in the article. The New York Times link is dead. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe that silent films are generally considered to be notable, as part of Wikipedia's coverage of the early history of film. I fixed the New York Times link with an Internet Archive page. I also added references from Turner Classic Movies, AllMovies and American Film Institute, databases that are often cited on articles about early films. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Toughpigs, the all movie page just have a summary and doesn't have an analysis of the movie. Also TCM page is dead for me. It comes up with page not found. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The TCM link works for me. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toughpigs, it's leading to http://www.tcm.com/unavailable. Maybe they're blocking me since I'm in the UK.

Plus, are you saying silent film gets to bypass WP:GNG? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it can be presumed that silent films got significant coverage, as this one did. I added references to the article from Motion Picture World, Reel Life, The Moving Picture World and Motion Picture News. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the additional reliable sources added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Per above, Article has enough reliable sources to pass notability. Alex-h (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-France Morin

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - fails NHOCKEY through WP:BIAS for not having a penis. I've added 18 references to the article demonstrating that GNG is met. She was the first women drafted in the men's Central Junior A Hockey League and played on the men's Eastern Ontario Junior C Hockey League for four years, leading to much media coverage, and a lot of in-depth articles when she played for Canada in 2000, as well as in the 2002 Canadian National Women's Hockey Championship. Nfitz (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nfitz sums it up. I believe WP:NHOCKEY completely either ignores or is blissfully unaware of women's leagues. Ifnord (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist | freedom isn't free 02:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Shantz-Smiley

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources already in the article. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources in the article are just routine sports reporting. Deadman137 (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats a suprising take because these sources [5][6][7][8] are all in the article and are not routine sports reporting. Here is also a feature about her turning around the national team program. Dammit_steve (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject passes WP:GNG as shown above. Sources in other languages are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Flibirigit (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - some great sources in the article. Nfitz (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Passes WP:GNG (non-admin closure) BEAMALEXANDER!, talk 08:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Sigurðsson

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY; fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources already in the article. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, meets GNG. Played for the Icelandic national team. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject passes WP:GNG. Sources in other languages are sufficient to demonstrate notability.

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

Keep, Passes notability , has played for the national team Alex-h (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just want to say that simply playing for the Icelandic national team does not show WP notability. WP:NHOCKEY specifically says that notability is presumed only for those competing at the highest level of the IIHF or Olympics and Iceland does not qualify. I won't comment on notability because I don't have the time right now to research the sources to check if WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Username⁶⁸⁹² 14:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miraculous plague cure of 1522

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

This article is particularly worrisome because it can be seen as supporting certain current efforts to exempt religious services and processions from public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic - see [9] and Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Religious protection. The article says:

When the second plague pandemic hit Rome, Italy, the local authorities banned processions so as to stop the plague. However, Catholics made a 16-day crucifix procession from San Marcello al Corso, through the streets of Rome, and back to St. Peter's Basilica.... As the crucifix toured a neighborhood, the people of the neighborhood were miraculously cured of the Black Plague, so that each neighborhood sought to have the crucifix stay with them as long as possible. When the crucifix entered St. Peter's Basilica, Rome was miraculously completely cured of the plague.

The article concludes by noting that Pope Francis prayed before the same crucifix for an end to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Soon after the article's creation in March, an editor placed a template about the need for reliable sourcing, but three months later the article still has just a single source, Vatican News. I have not been able to find any reliable independent sources. I am proposing it for deletion because it violates WP:V, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS by giving credence to beliefs in faith healing. NightHeron (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator now that the article has been rewritten, retitled, expanded, and properly sourced. NightHeron (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Note: Article now renamed Plague procession of 1522 by Beyond My Ken - better imo, though including "Rome" would be bttter still. Johnbod (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep History is full of people believing in faith healing. The WP policies on pseudoscience were not intended to scrub history of pseudoscience, but to prevent people from advocating for it in the present day. If this was an article about how you need to go to a shrine to be cured from coronavirus, it would be a different picture altogether.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have done a search for "Miraculous plague cure of 1522", I get no hits in any books or journals. As no reliable sources discuss this topic, the article should be deleted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather overprecise (and not very idiomatic) search term. Try a proper search - the difference is, well, miraculous! Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Oratory of Santissimo Crocifisso, where the cross now is after rewriting to better match the source. There are in fact, many, many RS on this, so it could be kept. The nom seems motivated by POV concerns. NightHeron and User:Psychologist Guy - what is the matter with you? Did nobody ever teach you how to do an internet search???? Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not really convinced by the FRINGE concerns: there is no FRIDGE or MEDRS issue with saying that 500 years ago people attributed something to magic. I think the merge suggested by Johnbod is very reasonable, though -- the different aspects of the cross and its location can be covered together, and it avoids the very awkward title of this article. --JBL (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably should be renamed to be about the crucifix, but yeah... this is definitely notable. The recent use of the item by the Pope in the pandemic brought significant attention, and given that it was significant enough for him to use, you're all but certain to find significant commentary on it in Italian sources making it notable outside the COVID-19 situation. Also see Johnbod's link above. I suggesIt was before, but especially given recent events it would easily meet GNG. When I worked more in content I spent a lot of time cleaning up overly religously or badly sourced Catholic articles, so I'm certainly sympathetic to NightHeron's concerns, but we typically consider relics, saints, and other religious subjects that are considered significant by a major religious group to be notable, because there will be significant commentary in their non-primary source histories and theologies. That's definitely the case here. Yes, the article could probably use a rewrite and a rename, but deletion is not the best option. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about re-naming for the crucifix. The procession qualifies as a notable event (I have little doubt that it happened) and reporting on what people thought it did for them is a legitimate subject. If there is significantly more about the crucifix than is in this article, a new article could be created without deletitng this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are only two pages on Google books of visible material for Johnbod's search and they all seem off-topic or not in depth coverage. Can you list one reliable source that actually discusses this Miraculous plague cure of 1522 in depth? Some of those seems to be discussing something else. I am not convinced this is a notable topic. This looks like WP:SYNTH to me. Historians do not seem to be discussing this topic. I do a lot of historical research myself and I have never come across this. For me this is not notable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Psychologist Guy, sure:
  - Eitel-Porter, Rhoda. "The Oratorio Del SS. Crocifisso in Rome Revisited." The Burlington Magazine 142, no. 1171 (2000): 613-23. Accessed June 7, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/888898.
  - O'Regan, Noel. "Processions and Their Music in Post-Tridentine Rome." Recercare 4 (1992): 45-80. Accessed June 7, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/41701104.
  - Von Henneberg, Josephine. "An Early Work by Giacomo Della Porta: The Oratorio Del Santissimo Crocifisso Di San Marcello in Rome." The Art Bulletin 52, no. 2 (1970): 157-71. Accessed June 7, 2020. doi:10.2307/3048704.
  - Pope Francis, his crucifix and the Virgin Mary: miraculous or merely traditional?

These are all in the context of the confraternity associated with the church building, but discuss the alleged miracle and the crucifixes later use in processions. @Johnbod, Joel B. Lewis, and Andreas Philopater: I think keeping and changing to be about the crucifix is probably better than merging. It seems to be notable on its own in addition to being a significant part of the church. Again, I'd rename this article to be about the art object associated with it, because there seems to have been enough academic writing on that to meet our notability standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The oratory was built to house the crucifix; it makes no sense to have separate articles on each of them. It would if they had since been separated, but as it is it would like having an article about a painting and an article about its frame. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The oratory is a physical building that is notable in its own right. The crucifix and the related traditions behind it is distinct as an art object. We also likely don't have as much writing about it in English because of the whole Henry VIII thing. I'd expect there to be even more on the crucifix itself in Italian. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources can be found, sure. So far I'm not seeing them (and I have been looking). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a dissertation to mine for sources, later revised and published. Oratory, archconfraternity and crucifix all look notable enough, but they should all fit nicely in a single article. fiveby(zero) 00:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delumeau Jean (1951). "Une confrérie romaine au XVI siècle". Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire. 63: 281–306. looks like most cited source independent of oratory. fiveby(zero) 00:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiveby, good finds. I had already seen Delumeau's article, but since it is primarily about the confraternity, and only talks about the supposed miracles as a context for its existence, I didn't take that as a basis for keeping the end of the 1522 epidemic as a primary topic. At a glance the same applies to the dissertation, although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Oratory of Santissimo Crocifisso Rename to Confraternity of the San Marcello crucifix or Arciconfraternita del Sanctissimo Crocefisso in San Marcello and edit content accordingly. Add the plague outbreak to Timeline of the city of Rome. ~~--Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)~~ --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is retitled so that it's about a notable relic rather than a miraculous plague cure, and if it's written so as not to suggest that belief in divine intervention to cure a pandemic is part of living Catholic belief, I'd be fine with that. As JBL said, there's no problem with reporting that people 500 years ago believed in magic. The problem is that today certain religious groupings still believe in magic, and this belief is widespread and powerful enough so that 15 US states have complete religious exemption from social-distancing measures during the pandemic. If the rewritten article mentions Pope Francis' prayer in front of the crucifix, it should not give the impression that the Pope wants people to anticipate divine intervention to stop COVID-19. NightHeron (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources say that it is part of living Catholic belief then that is what we should say. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should have put in the words "falsely" or "misleadingly." There are no Catholics in the list in Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Religious protection of religious or political figures who have made statements claiming that religious faith or religious rituals cures COVID-19. NightHeron (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leaning a bit more towards Andreas Philopater's view rather than TonyBallioni's, but that is probably best resolved by someone reading the sources and working on the article(s), not at Afd. fiveby(zero) 01:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added some references (from CNN and Reuters) to confirm that the alleged procession is thought to have happened, but I also moved it to Plague procession of 1522, on the theory that we should not say in Wikipedia's voice that this was an actual "miraculous plague cure". The new title seemed preferable to adding "alleged" to the current title, which was the other option. (Besides, I found almost no references to "Miraculous plague cure of 1522" on Google, so it's not like it's a common expression.) The title could also have been "Roman plague procession of 1522", but I didn't think additional disambiguation was necessary.Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the interesting discussion, and per the edits to the page since the nomination which seem to have moved it to the realm of the savable. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly notable. Any issues with the title of the page or how we organise the related articles should be discussed on the relevant talk/Wikiproject pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (speedy, even, since the nominator appears to have withdrawn their nomination and the single !vote to delete seems to lack a WP:BEFORE): The subject has received scholarly treatment (as noted above, and e.g. Albinsky in Space, Place, and Motion: Locating Confraternities in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Period), and the single sentence devoted to its 21st-century relevance is quite due. ——Serial^# 09:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent expansion of the article. Bravo! Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just needed the mumbo-jumbo getting rid of, Beyond My Ken ;) ——Serial^# 17:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be modest, you also provided a lot more context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable subject matter, and not really fringe if treated as historical. Alexbrn (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the Italian article on the Oratorio del Crocifisso, the cross there is a copy of the "miracle cross", which is actually housed in the "Chiesa di San Marcello al Corso". The information about the "miracle" of the cross (surviving a fire that destroyed the church it was in) and its use as a miracle cure during the plague in 1522 is in this latter article. There are few references in the Italian article so I am not saying that it provides definitive proof, but I have my doubts that the Oratorio (which seems to be known primarily as a venue for music) is deeply related to the "miracle cross." Lamona (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona: The problem here arises from the fact that the Oratory of Santissimo Crocifisso and the San Marcello al Corso Church are the same place; the oratory is an oratory attached to the church. So the cross, presumably, is in the Oratory of the Holy Crucifixion in the Church of St Marcellus. The church existed before the 1522 plague but the oratory did not. I suggest merging the two, and possibly merging this article with them both. GPinkerton (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repurpose The notable thing here is either the crucifix housed in San Marcello al Corso, or the 1522 plague epidemic in Rome, not some plagiarized papal miracle imitating the old Roman Plague of 590 legend. I would prefer a title like 1522 Plague of Rome or Crucifix of San Marcello al Corso. GPinkerton (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NightHeron, if you could withdraw this nomination, we can carry on discussing the page move on the article talk page per WP:LOUSYTITLE. ——Serial^# 13:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129: Done. And thanks for your extensive work improving the article. NightHeron (talk) 15:39, 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 delete. czar 01:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Backford

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

As with Daniel Baradza, no independent sources. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This can actually be fixed from the sources in the Spanish article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: In that case, would you like to withdraw the AFD nomination and fix the article?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable sculptor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective sources, non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 00:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradfordville School

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

Possibly non-notable school. No third party source given and non found. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having applied for the NRHP is probably not enough, unless the application can be located. John from Idegon (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSCHOOL per low amount of significant coverage. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 00:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Strips

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

Fails WP:GNG. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable, third-party published sources. Their About page mentions a lot of firsts, but there do not appear to be any reliable sources covering those firsts...or supporting any of their claims, really. They mention being interviewed by the New York Times, but it's a couple of pullquotes in three sentences about another publisher entirely. A search for "digitalstrips.com" and "Digital Strips" finds the usual primary sites, podcast hosts, social media, forums, open wikis, links from sites they've talked about, and random trivial mentions like at Wired. In short, the podcast exists, but there's virtually no coverage to write anything about it. Woodroar (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The non-primary sources on this article are:
- A fan comic (imagining "Digital Strippers", a site about webcomics crossed with BDSM).
- A New York Times article, covering webcomics in general, containing the following relevant section: "“With the Net, you can get to a smaller group of people at a larger scale,” said Heiko Ramirez, who produces a popular podcast about Webcomics on the blog Digital Strips (www.digitalstrips.com), where he is editor in chief. He noted that a comic that might attract only a handful of readers locally could, at no additional cost, find a readership of 10,000 nationally. Nonetheless, “print will never go away,” he added. “People like to own what they love.”"
- An interview of "Daku the Rogue" (one of the creators of Digital Strips) by a site called Broken Frontier. The source linked in the article is actually an archive of a contents page; the actual interview linked appears to be missing as archive.org apparently has not archived the mp3 file that contains the interview.

So we have an unreliable and trivial mention, a trivial mention, and an unreliable source whose contents cannot be found. Unless more sources can be found, this article should be deleted for the same reasons as it was the first time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryCrun15 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If this (2nd) RfA is closed as delete, please consider salting it as well. Ifnord (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Chitkara

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

A promotional article about a businessman who is the CEO of a division of Airtel. I could not find any coverage aside from passing mentions and statements issued by him. M4DU7 (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See nothing conclusive when it comes to WP:GNG. Bvatsal61 (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Baradza

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

Artist doesn't have third-party source given and none can be found. Therefore, it fails WP:GNG. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I could not find independent RS. That said, there is a problem built into our notability rules in that they favour countries with strong independent media. The quantity of independent reporting that comes out of a place like Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Zambia or similar southern African countries is miniscule compared to the volume of reporting coming out of countries in the northern hemisphere.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<irony>Because we urgently need to apply our notability guidelines strictly and rigorously, especially when it involves Black people from southern Africa, on which we have such an abundance of articles that we need to start culling. God forbid we tackle video game companies without any references since 2010 or something like amateur handball players from the Netherlands with 1 ref to a sport stat site.</irony> My irony meter just exploded. Anyway, he has an entry in Eyoh, Dickson; Zeleza, Paul Tiyambe (2005-10-24). Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century African History. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-56584-9. and Winter-Irving, Celia (2004). Pieces of Time: An Anthology of Articles on Zimbabwean Stone Sculpture. Mambo Press., so that's a Keep Vexations (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, page number? Also, I did not target this subject. I've just gone through random articles clicking "random article." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations I didn't mean we have to apply the guidelines rigorously, I mean we have to apply them uniformly. I tend to trust your views and judgement without question... but how long are the book entries, just for my own edification? 19:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't directed at you, and I made a mistake. I saw the entry in Pieces of Time and misquoted the Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century African History. The entry in Pieces of Time either shows or doesn't show, depending on how you access google books, so unless I can dig it up in a Library that isn't going to happen, that doesn't help either. My bad. My point, I suppose is this. Looking for articles to delete and targeting Black subjects as has just happened with Charles Backford exemplifies the systemic exclusion of Black subjects from the encyclopedia. Insisting that we treat everybody equally when we know so well that white subjects have an incredible advantage is perpetuating racist practices. Seriously, go after video game companies without sources instead. The only problem with doing that is that it would overwhelm AfD. Vexations (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for that. Just to be clear, there was no targeting of this subject. As Tyw7 said, they found it randomly. I'd actually be right on the subject of African artists if I could find enough sources... which gives me an idea. I may start looking at African-continent Museum collections. Thanks for your source research.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in multiple books [10]. Vexations, articles about non notable companies and people are submitted for deltion at the rate of hundreds per day, have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 7. Its completely understandable that a 1 paragraph page with 0 sources would be submitted, it happens over 100 times a day. If there are pages with no sources then why not request they be deleted via WP:PROD or WP:SPEEDY. If you think that pages about Africans should be judged differently (possibly legitimately as sources could be in other languages) then why not take this to WP:VPP. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've always taken pages to XFD rather than PROD or speedy. So there's no bias there ie I have not treated this page different just because of the subject's race. Also, I can't see the contents of the book. Are they passing mentions or in-depth discussions? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlessandroTiandelli333: I'm willing to be swayed to k*ep here, which is why I checked that book link. The Google books results routinely provide books on related subjects that don't have the search term in them, or have one of the words (e.g. has "Daniel" but does not have "Baradza"). On the first page of my results for your Google Books link (Google customizes results based on your location and their magic algorithm), I get one book that mentions him, three Wikipedia-based books and the rest do not seem related. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to the level of sourcing we would not to justify having an article on a sculptor. Wikipedia is not meant to right wrongs. If scultors of certain nationalities, races or combinations of the two are under represented in reiable sources of sculptors we can not ignore reliable sources and great articles on them. The place to right such uneven coverage is in the pages of journals that cover sculptors, not in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for a person to go to publish research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. WP is not a place to WP:RGW or publish WP:OR, as JPL articulates above. b uidhe 19:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 16:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Celan

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

The references section is clearly a case of WP:BOMBARDMENT with links to UGC platforms and other sources. Fails WP:GNG Zoodino (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: While the references may include links to UGC platforms, according to Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, social media sites can sometimes be used as sources. Note also several of the reference links are to non-UGC sources, such as news articles or non-UGC websites/PDFs. There are several indicators of notability such as trending news and tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of views on related YouTube content. --Wiki2008time (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete won a beauty title that does not even come close to even remotely showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: While the title itself is not notable, related actions lead to several news articles including trending news in 2013, conferring notability. See other articles such as Amy Soranno; someone with an even less notable beauty title is considered notable enough for an encyclopedia article if other aspects of the person are significant. Other signs of notability in this case include performance arts with significant viewership and some notability within the medical field. Where only 18.46% of English Wikipedia's biographies are about women according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, one wonders about the systemic bias in suggesting an article about a female titleholder/physician is worthy of deletion whereas articles such as Ron Wear and Darren Storsley are allowed. --Wiki2008time (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started Amy Soranno myself. It's creation is irrelevant. Either, both, or neither article might get deleted. With millions of article, there's always something else that has issues. But, since we're comparing the two, I'd say, in both cases, the pageant by itself, is not important. You need substantial coverage from multiple reliable sources, that's not all tied to a single event, but rather, is biographical in nature, and focused on the subject. The sources used here, need to be cleaned up. You can't use sources like linkedin or pintrest. Replacing these with better sources would help more than any argument. Now, I'll go over to the other article, and check for the inevitable AFD nomination. --Rob (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: Thank you for the explanation. Note in the article that while Pinterest and LinkedIn are sometimes used, they are not the only citation for any particular claim. For example, a PDF of UBC's official medical graduation document is also cited at the same time as Pinterest. As well, I mentioned above "according to Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, social media sites can sometimes be used as sources." --Wiki2008time (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes on occassion, social media is a valid source for non-contentious material, written by the verified account of the subject. But, it never conveys any degree of notability, or supports claims of notability. Also, anybody can write anything they want on linkedin. It doesn't verify the claims. In most cases, it doesn't even verify the true identity of the account holder. --Rob (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the actual content of what the LinkedIn and Pinterest pages are cited for, you'll see that they are not the claims that are suggesting notability; they are simply more biographical information. You could delete them and the article would still have merit based on the fame of the head shave, the extensive YouTube viewership for the head shave video and for the various musical parodies that Patricia worked on, and her medical career - all of which are supported by news articles or links from official university sources. The LinkedIn and Pinterest information is simply being kept there as additional background for interest. I looked at other Wikipedia pages such as Tara Teng when learning how to use Wikipedia, and I noticed in her Talk page that there were some extensive issues about excess background information that needed trimming. Her article was not deleted, but merely improved, which is why I am rebutting suggestions for deletion of my first article. While I could argue for why I chose to do everything that I did, editing out misguided additions seems to me more appropriate than full deletion of someone that I felt was notable, and I still feel including the LinkedIn/Pinterest sources provide some useful additional information. --Wiki2008time (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as 1EVENT, ultimately. Trillfendi (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living people can often start as one event and expand from there with other notable information, which was the intention with this article. Wiki2008time (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If something is 1Event it’s just that. If there are no other forms of significant coverage besides that 1Event then it doesn’t meet general notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It’s not the fact that she won a pageant that isn’t a major pageant, it’s the “she shaved her head” part, which is not news. Trillfendi (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted notability given that I saw several news articles about the head shave, 300K views on YouTube for it, 75K views on YouTube for her biggest parody project, 3K views for each of her other parody videos as well as 2-3K views for other performance videos each, and dozens of articles/blogs on mental health in which she contributed her expertise as a medical doctor. These are not part of 1Event but are separate aspects of the biography of one person over time. No crystal ball needed - these are all supported by my citations to news articles, YouTube videos, and official university sources. --Wiki2008time (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* YouTube views do not contribute to notability. The head shaving act is the 1Event. As of what I've seen, the sources referring to her as a doctor do not go deep enough for general notability. One sentence type of mentions are not enough, we need in depth articles on the subject's medical career. Just my opinion but I speak from experience here. Trillfendi (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused then, as shorter pageant stubs (Debbe Ebben, Shalom Reimer) and medical stubs (Mira Ashby, Emma Gaudreau Casgrain, May Cohen, April Sanders, and Kona Williams) I've seen around Wikipedia that have been around for years, as well as other pageant stubs I've created (Courtnee Anderson, Gloren Guelos, Sandra Gin), have not been nominated for deletion, so I don't understand why this particular one was. I had more material to work with on this one compared to the other pageant stubs I've created or edited, where I couldn't find any notable career outside minor beauty pageant titles. I'm looking at this from the eyes of someone inexperienced and trying to learn by example, and relatively speaking, this is probably one of my better articles. I'm seeing double standards. --Wiki2008time (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most if not all of those articles warrant deletion proposals too. Some of them practically being brazen resumes, violating policy. The problem with this website is that any girl who wins a pageant has an article made without regard to standards. Trillfendi (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The above criticisms are in regard to the pageant aspect of this page. However, this is a biography of a living person that started as one event (pageant) and grew to some additional notability (performance arts, medical career). Both the pageant and the medical career separately have sufficient reliable sources to have some notability within themselves, and most arguments are focused on only one field or the other but this person is simultaneously somewhat notable within both fields. Therefore arguing it does pass WP:GNG and is not "1EVENT". Also recommend keeping it on the basis of having inadequate Wikipedia biographies about women according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, having inadequate Wikipedia biographies in the category of Canadian women physicians, and other existing articles about Canadian women physicians are even shorter and without additional notability outside medicine, such as Mira Ashby, Emma Gaudreau Casgrain, May Cohen, April Sanders, and Kona Williams. As well, existing articles about Canadian pageant winners can also be found to be shorter and without additional notability outside pageants, which have been around for a long time, such as Debbe Ebben and Shalom Reimer. I have also cleaned up the UGC links per criticism, but per Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, I do think the UGC added some helpful biographical information. --Wiki2008time (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please only !vote once. --Rob (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, fixed. --Wiki2008time (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. A one-time stunt that had no WP:LASTING impact. No other beauty pageant winners shaved their heads too. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, this article is not about a one-time stunt and once again, this is a criticism only about the beauty pageant portion of the article. Half the article is also about medical career including medical parody performances. Regarding the one-time stunt and failing WP:BIO, I added another source - this person is noted as "Miss Charity BC" in the Canadian Cancer Society's donor report and is the first instance I could find of a Miss Charity BC being in their reports. The fact that no other beauty pageant winners shaved their heads is something that confers notability; if it was commonplace to do so, then this act would be less significant and would not have sparked all the headlines in Canada, U.S., U.K., India, China. One could also argue the fundraising and head shave itself was a catalyst for her acceptance into medical school. Again, this article is a biography covering pageantry and a medical career, not just a one-time stunt in a pageant. By that argument, any pageant title is a one-time stunt, wondering why then pages such as Debbe Ebben, Courtnee Anderson, Gloren Guelos, Shalom Reimer are not marked for deletion given that there is significantly less news coverage available about their respective wins compared to this lesser title but more widespread media coverage. --Wiki2008time (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody following in her footsteps somehow makes her act more notable? That makes no sense. Also, her medical career is nothing out of the ordinary, so 0 notability + 0 notability = 0 notability. Finally, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument, but I'll get around to nominating at least Anderson, Guelos and Reimer for deletion. Not sure about Ebben. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because if many women were shaving their heads on stage at beauty pageants, then her doing this would be "nothing out of the ordinary" to use your words. By her doing this and nobody else in Canadian pageants that we know of, she gained significant notability within British Columbia and headlines in other countries as well. The notability may not be 1000, but it's more than 0. As well, her medical career is not nothing out of the ordinary; nothing out of the ordinary would be Kona Williams, who is known for nothing more than being the first First Nations doctor in her field in Canada; no evidence of any other notable actions, shorter article, yet her article remains for years. Here we have what seems to be the first beauty queen turned doctor in Canada (I can find no evidence of other beauty queen doctors in Canada) who has significant provincial fame for the head shave, then became a doctor who won at least one award during her training that has been documented and has been quoted as an expert repeatedly about COVID-19 and other topics, per Fuzheado's response. So medical notability is not 0; there is slightly more here than the "ordinary" doctor like Kona Williams. --Wiki2008time (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If folks took a few minutes to look beyond the pageant, one would find many quotes from her in 2020 related to COVID-19. Therefore, she is notable for more than one event, and she has been quoted as an expert in this field in multiple WP:RS. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Substantial coverage about a subject in multiple reliable sources can convey notability. But, the ones citing Celan as a health expert, do not actually cover Celan as the *subject*. The only significant coverage about her is pageant related, and is narrowly focussed on a single event. Now, if there was coverage about something she's done, like research that she's released, or she gave opinions that generated notable disagreements/debates/support, won some awards, or recognition, or even a simple "life of a doctor" story, would convey some notability. --Rob (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Need not be the subject of the articles to be notable as a health expert in dozens of articles about mental health. Also, she has been profiled on the UBC Medicine and Dalhousie Medicine websites, both of which are cited, so there's your simple "life of a doctor" story. I just checked, and every single doctor is not profiled on the university websites, only a handful. She also won an award within Dalhousie Medicine, which was cited. There were other awards she had won but I removed that background biographical information per complaints about UGC platforms, though per Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, I still believe there is some merit to the background information provided by the UGC platforms. So once again, this is an article not just about a pageant win (which I would argue is slightly more notable than the average municipal or provincial-level beauty queen given the unique action of the head shave and associated fundraising), but also about a slightly more notable doctor than the average physician who doesn't get profiled, win an award, or get quoted as an expert in a long list of articles. --Wiki2008time (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ An article's coverage doesn't have to be mainly about her, but it does have to about her, to some extent. For example, a story about the life of doctors, that mentions a few, including her would help. But, the medical related sources are not at all about her. They are about medical topics. She's giving pretty standard/common opinion. Also, I really have to say MyBestMbestmattress.com is not a reliable source. They sell mattresses. They are not a media outlet with fact checkers. Her profile on their site is a standard promotional profile of somebody. The profiles at academic institutions she works for are not reliable sources. Those are self-promotional. --Rob (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This response is completely disregarding some of the things said above, including things said directly to you in the preceding message. As stated above, sources 9, 11, 12, 13 provide doctor profiles and an award, all on university websites - these include stories about the life of doctors that mentions a few, including her. That's not "self-promotional", as those websites are not UGC and the universities are profiling the doctors, not the universities themselves. Besides medical, there are many articles about her within the pageant component. As well, per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The articles naming her as a medical expert do not need to be about her "to some extent", naming her as a medical expert in multiple quotes within an article is indicating more than trivial mention. I don't know what to say about mybestmattress.com, I just added that in as a bonus that can easily be removed without changing the overall article much so if it's not reliable then it can be removed. However, from what I see looking around the website, it looks to be a site that compiles reviews for mattresses, it does not seem to be selling mattresses. Their articles quoting Celan are about topics such as coronavirus insomnia, not selling mattresses. You've been overly involved in 3 different people's arguments here and on the attack of everything I've been posting on Wiki ever since I referenced your article Amy Soranno as an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which was not intended as a personal attack on your work but rather as a defense to keep my hard work, so please stop attacking my work with arguments that are not even fully informed. Per WP:BITE, please stop the hostility. --Wiki2008time (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure anymore - I'm going to abstain from !voting now. I think the article definitely was *not* ready to go into article space initially, and still isn't, but its in the midst of a cleanup. I suggest that if a closing admin decides this article should be removed, they should offer to move it it to user and/or draft space to be further improved. I do still strongly assert that a number of profiles cited, are actually promotional. That is, when a company/organization hires/uses an expert, they will publish a friendly bio about them (making both look good). University faculty/staff/student/research profiles are not at all reliable sources. They are almost always written by the subjects, and not fact checked, even in the most renowned/respected institutions. --Rob (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've removed the sleep expert one, so that argument is null now, and that was the only promotional one. The others are reliable sources that did not provide any kind of "promotional" profiling in them. About 1/3-1/2 of the article's sources are about the pageant, from several news outlets. Another 1/3-1/2 are about medical information, with reliable sources that simply discussed the relevant mental health topic and briefly described the expert as a psychiatry resident at Dalhousie University and then went on to use the expert's quotes - no "promotional" profiling. The universities profiling the doctors is not UGC any more than any news articles that interview subjects. Subjects can say anything in a news interview and have it quoted as-is, and the universities did the same in profiling their doctors. As well, they were not providing any outlandish self-promotional material, no wild claims, but rather were simple biographies of doctors. Nothing they said in the profiles scream, "Go to UBC! Go to Dalhousie! Hire me!" - they simply cover who these people are and what their interests are. --Wiki2008time (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is every single citation of in the "Medical Career" section based on the version as of my writing:
11 - sfu.ca => Reliable for facts, no notability conveyed, as it's a simplistic listing
12 - med.ubc.ca => Reliable for singular fact that she entered school. Q&A format means she supplied answers
13 - youtube.com => A YouTube playlist. Without watching it all, I assume it shows her singing and dancing. Not a reliable source, and not a sign of notability
14 - youtube.com => Not reliable, not a sign of notability. Having thousands of views on YouTube is a trivial matter, anybody can achieve. More importantly, no reliable source says anything about it.
15 - ubc.ca => Reliable source for fact of graduation. Not a sign of notability, as it's just a mass list
16 - cdn.dal.ca => Reliable source for fact of attendance. Not a sign of notability, as it just shows her picture, and gives her answers to a few questions. Not a reliable source of facts beyond mere attendance, since she supplied answers.
17 - medicine.dal.ca = > Doesn't mention her
18 - cdn.dal.ca => "..our own Dr. Patricia Celan wrote the winning entry..." is the only thing that's marginally notable, and reliable fact. Saying "our own" doesn't build independence.
19 - healthline.com => Reliable source for facts, not a sign of notability, as nothing substantial is said of Celan personally
20 - insider.com => ditto
21 - ca.finance.yahoo.com => ditto
22 - ca.finance.yahoo.com => ditto
23 - huffingtonpost.ca => ditto

In short, a few facts are verified, but nothing substantial is said about Celan personally. There's no indication of notability in any of this, except maybe, maybe, maybe, a tidbit about a writing award, that we have no meaningful coverage of, beyond that singfular fact. --Rob (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Keeping in mind your focus here is on dismantling the medical aspect, but we do also have the pageant aspect, and the 2 aspects together combine to create more notability than one aspect alone.) Some of these arguments seem to be differences of opinion. Agreed, some of those are simple fact checks. Re: YouTube, does this behind the scenes feature from a different source (UBC IT) provide more notability to her parody work for the one with 75,000 views? https://vimeo.com/121938108 If so, could add it?

Disagree about #12 and #16. They are not just reliably showing fact of attendance, they are profiling specific student doctors amid many other possible options, choosing these ones in particular for some reason. There is nothing wrong with the Q&A format, as that is usually the format in newspaper interviews too. She presumably provided the answers to the questions she was quoted in for the pageant articles too.

Once again, difference of opinion on being quoted as an expert in multiple articles. As stated above a few times, per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Once again, she does not need to be the subject nor be personally described in any way for the significant coverage to be considered notable. She is repeatedly quoted as an expert speaking about medical topics. By virtue of being quoted as a professional expert, not as a layperson being asked for opinions about a local matter in a local paper, that provides more than a "trivial mention". Expert quotes are not trivial, and especially not in high quantity. I could add many more articles than the 6 listed to demonstrate that there are at least 50 articles she has been quoted in as an expert, but then I'd be accused of WP:BOMBARDMENT again, and a sampling of 6 seems to get the message across well enough. (Keeping in mind your focus here is on dismantling the medical aspect, but we do also have the pageant aspect, and the 2 aspects together combine to create more notability than one aspect alone.) --Wiki2008time (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just checked, and where you said #16, I think you meant #17. The numbers may have gotten mixed up with edits, where #16 is now about UBC and #17 is about cdn.dal.ca. Anyway, #17 does mention her and profiles her, on page 4, it's not just a mass list - only 8 people are profiled. As well, #18 mentions her if you scroll down, and shows her winning entry - she was the only winner in the doctor category. #19 refers to the previous #18 you were talking about. Then the other articles start at #20. Anyway the point of this update is just to say that she is actually mentioned/profiled in all sources, there are no sources where she is not mentioned. --Wiki2008time (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meets "Academics" criterion of WP:ANYBIO "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." So she does not need to be the subject of the many articles she was quoted in. See WP:ACADEMIC criterion 7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." - Expert quotations are not small in number (look at this person's twitter) nor local news media (found articles for this Canadian physician in American outlets). This in itself invalidates the WP:ONEEVENT argument as this person is one event PLUS the academic part. "It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event." --Wiki2008time (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saw a comment that shaving her head doesn't count as being an academic (editor then reverted this). Once again, this is a person who is not JUST a pageant winner who is notable for shaving her head, she also has a bit of notability in the medical field considering a contest win and dozens of expert quotations in conventional media, per criterion 7 of WP:ACADEMIC. Most comments are focusing on either the pageant or the medical career and disregarding the other half of the article. Please read the entire article in full before determining this person is not notable for one field or the other field, because she has combined notability from both fields. --Wiki2008time (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure how having too many references is a criteria for deletion. While many seem superficial, a handful seem significant. Article needs editing and improving, not deleting. Nfitz (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of being academic in the least and doesn't satisfy any academic criteria. The article subject is a resident,a junior position and offering the basic of information. She is not allowed to offer anything, confirming again that she is not an academic Known for single event which has been spun in the references, to give reference bloat, and engender notability that doesn't exist. For example, there is 5 instances of getting her head shaved, there is 6 of beauty pageant, then a whole lot passing mentions, that constitute the rest. No real coverage outwith the single event. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 00:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how she is not an academic. I see multiple universities, UGC information that was removed indicated some research and university teaching assistantship, and she's a doctor in residency. Those all look academic to me. Not sure how junior or senior the position is has any influence on the ultimate decision. What do you mean "offering the basic of information" and "she is not allowed to offer anything"? I actually don't understand the argument there so I don't know how to respond. She would count as an academic who contributes to the field of mental health outside academia, per criterion 7 of WP:ACADEMIC. As for the pageant, I was not trying to "give reference bloat" but simply to demonstrate international coverage of the head shave, conferring more notability than the average winner in BC pageants with BC-local coverage only. --Wiki2008time (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. She is not an academic. To be a academic, you must be in that position. She is a junior doctor, a resident, and is allowed to give simple advice and that is it. She doesn't satisfy WP:ACADEMIC#7 in any situation. She entirely non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 22:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"However, academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements. Conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not need to be notable academics to warrant an article." From WP:ACADEMIC. And then again, #7 says "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." She has a lot of quotes in conventional media as an expert in mental health. --Wiki2008time (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also her website says she was a research assistant and teaching assistant in areas related to mental health, and now a quick google search will find her quoted in the news and in blogs dozens of times and all apparently related to mental health in some way. See Academic ranks in Canada. Looks to me like an academic contributing to the field of mental health. --Wiki2008time (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:BIO1E applies. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per the other discussions above (See also discussion under Trillfendi's 1EVENT assertion), this goes beyond 1 event. --Wiki2008time (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. The article has been significantly improved by the page creator and other helpful editors (earlier and now), the content and the tone is more neutral and appropriate. The article still needs to be worked upon for WP:POV, focusing more on the article's subject rather than the founders.(non-admin closure) Zoodino (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fast.ai

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

Article seems to be completely written in a promotional tone. 6 out of 10 references are to the group's website itself. No significant coverage and notability. Zoodino (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm the original author. I can assure you that I have no conflict of interest whatsoever and didn't intend to write this in a promotional tone (?). I did take the MOOC myself and was browsing Jeremy Howards's page when I noticed fast.ai didn't have its own page. I thought it would be appropriate for it to have a page on WP and thought it would be a useful contribution. I've been working mainly on the Dutch WP in the past - maybe the rules for inclusion are slightly different there? Is there anything I can do to improve the article? I included the links to the group's website because I thought references would be good :| but I can ofcourse take them out if that's better. Paritalo (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to take some "promotional" language out, and now only 2 out of 6 references refer to their own page. Not sure how else to improve it - would welcome some guidance. Is the topic/page by itself wikipedia-worthy? Is the trouble just the language? I'd be happy to get some guidance to avoid this in the future... I was kind of hoping to create more articles on AI/ML-related topics, but now I'm not so sure anymore :( Paritalo (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paritalo, the notability criteria say that notability is determined based on "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". You're correct that references are good, but for notability, some references are better than others. Refs to the company's website are not considered independent. Published books and major newspapers are usually good, if the subject is covered in some detail. I think that your strongest references right now are from the Verge and ZDNet — they're recognized, reliable, independent news sources in this topic ara, and the articles are about fast.ai specifically. If you can find another couple like that, it would be helpful. Check out the Google Books search results — that's often a useful way to find published sources.

For the promotional language, the section on #Masks4All is pretty obviously promotional. Phrases like "Jeremy Howard has been a prominent advocate for masks" are too strong — Anthony Fauci is a "prominent advocate" for masks, Jeremy Howard is not. "Information regarding the science behind the efficacy of masks during the pandemic can be found through fast.ai in 22 different languages" is also unhelpful — there are lots of information sources about the efficacy of masks, and encouraging readers to use fast.ai rather than public health sites is obviously promotional for the company. I see that another editor has already taken that section out, while I was writing this response. :) — Toughpigs (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your explanations Toughpigs, that's very helpful! I'll definitely keep this in mind in the future for other articles. I'll try to see if the fast.ai page can be improved with more neutral information / external resources. Thanks again, I was kind of surprised by the deletion nomination but I see the point now. Paritalo (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is unreferenced content in the Lead that is not elaborated upon in the body of the article, and in the body there are unreferenced quotes from the founders of the company. David notMD (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David notMD, the reference for the quote is [11], which was taken out because there were too many references to their own webpage. Should it be reinserted? While you wrote your comment, I was working on the article, restructering and creating an additional section on the MOOC. What other content do you see that is unreferenced? Paritalo (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on your Talk page (AfDs are not the place for dialog with other editors). David notMD (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article shouldn't be deleted because of errors that can easily be handled through normal editing. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While promotional tone, there are significant references to this website. [12], [13], [14], [15] come to mind. In fact, there's even some criticism of the website in these articles. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Including the verge article present in the article as is, there are five sources supporting notability. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Business Insider, the Verge and ZDnet are legit sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the previously cited sources, a cursory search reveals coverage from FastCompany, MIT Tech Review, etc. It was even cited (though just a passing mention) by the NY Times. While no book was written about it, at least three (UNCTAD's The Impact of Rapid Technological Change on Sustainable Development; Subramanian's Deep Learning with PyTorch; and Panetto et al's On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems) have discussed the subject. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:09, 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 no consensus. I have considered carefully the quantity and quality of contributions on both sides and there is not a consensus to delete. As with all my AFD closures, I consider them carefully before making them and do not change my decision based on talk page messages. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Temi Olajide

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

~~Apart from her interviews in some borderline sources, there is no independent in-depth coverage in any RS. Fails GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, however I am leaving the nomination open because it has some merit. MER-C 17:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep - in a field of both sexes, she's the first Nigerian Child Sleep/Potty Training Consultant and Child Psychologist. She is co-founder of a major organization in Nigeria. Vanguard, Guardian, Punch, Bella Naija, Leading Ladies (all major media houses in Nigeria) have all done pieces on her and as such, she fits the basic criteria of notability. SuperSwift (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep per SuperSwift's position Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The article's sources are all interviews and are not independent of her. A Google search of the subject doesn't show in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The nominator has been blocked for suspected likely socking (WP:SOCKSTRIKE). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus. If she does have the multiple articles written about her (not simply mention her in passing) in Nigeria, that would indicate notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject of the article has been covered by multiple reliable sources which include Nigeria Guardian here, Punch Nigeria, Vanguard and a host of others and clearly passes for inclusion. Also, being the first Nigerian Certified Child Sleep consultant is something worthy to be on this encyclopaedia. Kaizenify (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per the relisting Comment above: More citations from reliable sources in Nigeria ( The Guardian (Nigeria),Vanguard (Nigeria), andThe Sun (Nigeria) with a broader focus on the subject matters have been used to improve the notability of the article. SuperSwift (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed. Subject passes GNG. Article has been also improved enough since nomination. Orientls (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator. The people voting keep have failed to show exactly how the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. All of the sources included in this discussion are not independent of the subject. I need to stress that these sources are primary sources and cannot be used to confer notability. The subject herself has no career to speak of apart from founding a non-notable company. The article's career section needs an overhaul; majority of the content in that section is fluff. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Versace1608, instructing a closing admin to note your misleading comment is not helpful. You wrote All of the sources included in this discussion are not independent of the subject.These feature-length articles in major newspapers The Guardian Newspaper, Sun Newspaper are definitely not primary sources and they clearly meet our definition of in-depth-coverage. I apologize, but either you are not reading these sources or you are selectively reading them. It is disruptive either way. She was listed as one of the 100's most influential, powerful, inspiring and innovative women in Nigeria by The Guardian. SuperSwift (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperSwift, you can’t say Versace1608’s comment or any other editor’s comment or point of view is disruptive as it is exactly like I said; there own point of view, you may either concur or disagree. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperSwift: Please pratice civility when talking to others here. I stand by what I said. All of those newspaper sources are interview sources. They cannot be used to confer notability because they are not secondary sources and are not independent of her. For your info, publications where the subject talks about themselves is not considered secondary coverage. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my comment that either you aren't reading sources or you are selectively reading them, if you continue to refer to this feature-length article, also this publication by The Guardian and this by The Sun Newspaper as interviews. @Celestina007: If a user failed or refuse to get the point, not reading sources or selectively reading them and continues to argue without making an effort to see other users side of a debate, it is disruptive. SuperSwift (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperSwift: How exactly is this a featured length article? For crying out loud, the entire article contains six brief paragraphs. Making a newspaper's publication list does not automatically mean someone is notable. The article published by The Sun newspaper contains heavy quotes from the subject; how exactly is this independent of her? You clearly haven't fully grasp the meaning of secondary sources. I did not selectively read any sources and how exactly am I being disruptive? I am not obligated to agree with you on anything. You claim that these sources are independent and I am telling you they aren't. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject passes GNG. Six paragraphs is far and away significant coverage, and the act of including quotes in an article does not mean it cannot contribute to GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced with arguments so far, for keep.I don't see much in the comprehensive secondary source that establish notability beyond all doubt. Really not a lot here, a simple small para that mentions her as a sleep consultant. I'm curious as to why so many editors are pushing to get the article kept when there is such tenuous notability. There is effectively no secondary sources that are in in-depth and that are independent of the subject. There is no other coverage, so it fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 09:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@scope_creep, you couldn’t be more apt! Editors !voting to keep are doing so for the sake of it without substantiating it with policies. Celestina007 (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind the both of you to stop casting aspersions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough sources to meet GNG here. Most of the sources (Guardian, Vanguard, The Sun etc ) are established papers and reliable in general. The nominator's claim of no RS is clearly unfounded. – Ammarpad (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wishes to merge the content to, for example, Kazuo Ishiguro#Personal life, it can be restored on request at WP:REFUND, but I saw no consensus to do this. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Ishiguro

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

This looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Unless I've missed something, she has so far published one well-reviewed but not award-winning or otherwise notable book. The refs reflect this, and I couldn't find more on WP:BEFORE: it doesn't amount to notability, so fails WP:AUTHOR. Her father is a huge literary figure, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Ingratis (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She has done some work but not enough to be notable yet. I agree with WP:TOOSOON. Nika2020 (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable writer. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or rename to Escape Routes (book). She's the author of a notable book per WP:NBOOK#1 and reviews in The Times, The Herald, Big Issue, NB Quarterly, The Canberra Times, and The Student. pburka (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one notable book fails WP:NAUTHOR, which requires "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." (#3) or "significant critical attention" (#4). There's a case for an article on Escape Routes (book), and should that article be created, her article could be redirected there. Seems likely in the future she may become notable, but it's too soon to tell. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article should be created for Escape Routes (book) because it is a semi-notable book. So far, she doesn't seem to merit an article (WP:TOOSOON) Ajshul ^Talk _Work 15:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That could just be this article, with the order of the paragraphs reversed. Why delete when we can easily save the article through editing, without losing the history? I'd do it now, but renaming articles during AfD is discouraged. pburka (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. The content of the article that covers Escape Routes (book) would be useful within an Escape Routes (book) article which there is definitely a case for (especially to replace this article). Ajshul (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kazuo_Ishiguro#Personal_life, where she is currently not even mentioned. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename it Escape Routes. The subject's notability is tied to her work 'Escape Routes' which has a number of reviews. Every author is notable for his own work and since Escape Routes is her work, let her enjoy that privilege. This author is most likely to publish more books in no distant time which will boost her notability. Alternatively the article can be renamed Escape Routes because it has earned a number of reviews. Ugbede (talk) 7:54, 16 June 2020

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bellwether Technology Corporation

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

TL;DR: I believe the company only has two sources supporting its notability, one of which is local and the other of which is either primary or considered to be the same source as the other, depending on whether I am interpreting policy correctly. Regardless, it is thus not notable enough to merit an article. (It should also be mentioned that some serious CoI editing has occurred with the article.)

(Disclaimer: This is my first attempt at nominating an article for deletion, so I may have easily misinterpreted the notability guidelines. If that is the case, I apologize.)

Rationale: With regards to notability, the article currently has five references (not including one I previously removed for being unrelated to the company):

A link to a "Case Study" by Liongard, which is clearly listed under "Examples of dependant coverage" on WP:CORP as "not [being] sufficient to establish notability".
An article in a local newspaper about the company being "named to CRN’s Managed Service Provider 500 list". It's a local source (so it is not enough to establish notability if no other sources exist, per WP:CORP#Audience), but it appears to be independent and neutral and is thus otherwise fine with regards to notability (from what I can tell, at least).
An entry in PartnerPedia that reads straight like an advert. The banner at the website's top saying "Ready to list your company? Register Now" makes me suspect the content is also user-generated, which means it is also not an independent source.
An entry in the CRN website itself confirming that the company was included in the newspaper's Managed Service Provider 500 list. This is great, but A. it is a primary source (assuming I've interpreted WP:PRIMARY correctly), and B. it doesn't give any additional information or claims to notability beyond what source #2 provided—and from what I understand of the "multiple sources" requirement, a source publishing an article and another source writing about the first source publishing an article would only count as one source, though I could very easily be wrong here--as I've said previously, I do not have much experience in this field.) (Also, I should mention the note underneath the table stating "Unedited data provided by vendors" gives me pause).
An entry in a newspaper's "10 Fastest Growing IT Services Companies 2017" list, which I believe would be evidence of notability if the article wasn't blatantly promotional (the article's name itself is "On a mission to help clients excel by expertly applying and managing information technology: Bellwether Technology") and the article didn't continually refer to the company as "we" and "us", which makes me suspect the article is either pulled from a press release or written directly by the company itself. Either way, it is probably not an independent source.

Essentially, these sources show the company's article to have two usable sources currently: an award-giving website, and a paper writing about the company receiving an award from said award-giving website. This doesn't seem to be a very strong claim to notability thus far, in my opinion.

External websites:

Performing a search in Google Search and Google News was unhelpful; I found an article on how the company sponsored a concert in a park, but the article is primarily about the concert and only trivially discusses the company, meaning that it falls short of the significant coverage" requirement. I also found several discussing the company's founder (Poco Sloss) whilst only trivially mentioning the company, which has the same problem.
A search in Google Books brings up only a single paragraph in "Knowledge Potential Measurement and Uncertainty" that reads like a straight advertisement, so this is also unhelpful.

In short, the company truly has only two sources supporting its notability: a local source, and a source that is either primary or considered to be the same source as the other, depending on whether I am interpreting policy correctly or not. Either way, this company does not have "significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources," and thus this company should not have an article.

(Also, let's be honest here—the article wasn't created to provide neutral information about the company, the article was created to serve as a vehicle of promotion by the company. That is why a user who admitted to having worked for the company originally created the article in 2010 and maintained it for eight years straight, and why a bit over a week ago an IP address that geolocates to New Orleans (where the company is located) cleaned up the article and added bare references to two related articles (Phishing and Cyber insurance, to be specific) linking solely to the company's website. From what I can tell, this is yet another case of a company attempting to use Wikipedia as the world's largest billboard.) — TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername: posted at 18:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:COI article setting out a company's wares. The nearest to a claim to notability is the company's inclusion in CRN magazine's list of service providers, but that is not inherently notable. I concur with the nominator's thorough analysis and my own searches are finding passing mentions of individuals associated with the company but not the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability here. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 14:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raste

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

The family as an entity fails WP:GNG. Although some of the family members appear to be notable figures on their own, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Sources listed do not provide in-depth coverage of the family itself. One source does not mention the name Raste at all, three are general histories of India, one is about Wai, and two are about the Raste wada. Alan Islas (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources don't seem to cover the family as a whole; individuals in the family may merit an article. Ajshul (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with above points. Krokusma (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It appears BCAST is met 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radioactive FM 96

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

Promotional, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources cited in this article are pages from the radio station's own website ... but the site linked is a domain for sale and has no content about this radio station. Even if the radio station actually had its website at the link, the article would still be overly promotional, as it makes claims about how popular the radio station is among youth without citing any sources other than the station's own website. That said, terrestrial radio stations are generally notable as indicated at WP:NRADIO, so I would be willing to change my mind if this article had proper sources to verify the station's broadcasting activity. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing to neutral for the time being, pending revision of the page to correspond to what Raymie has written below. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Metropolitan90: I just moved the article to Karachi FM and revised the page. There are next to no sources on station history or the change from Radioactive to Karachi FM. They might exist in Urdu, but that does me no good. Raymie (t • c) 00:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Metropolitan90: Appears to now go by Karachi FM (their listed website redirects to this FB page). Radio in Pakistan is regulated by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority and it is listed on the list of commercial FM licences. Keep and move to Karachi FM to cover current imaging and name. Raymie (t • c) 23:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Raymie. As Radioactive FM 96, it's mentioned in an article about Radio in Karachi, one of its jocks was nominated in an award, and it was talked about in a section of a magazine. Therefore, with the sources indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:00, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Séan Doran (intern)

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

With greatest respect to the subject, it is unclear how WP:ANYBIO is met. In terms of:

WP:NSCIENTIST, the author points to this webpage in which the term "citizen scientist" is used. However, all other sources (that I can find) suggest that the subject is a digital/graphical artist. Otherwise there is no evidence that any of the NSCIENTIST criteria apply. That the subject is (or was?) an "intern" at NASA does not confer notability. The NASA website suggests that 2000+ internships are awarded (perhaps annually?). Not every NASA intern or employee is notable.
WP:NARTIST criteria, perhaps more applicable given this interaction on the Cake.co website in which the subject is described as a "visual artist", also don't seem to be met. In that, while the artist's work attracted some attention, there is little to no coverage of the artist independent of those works. In that sense, WP:BLP1E would seem to apply.
WP:NYOUTUBE and WP:INHERITWEB, it seems that the subject has had some attention on Flickr and YouTube and Reddit and what-have-you. But nothing to the extent that anywhere near WP:NWEB and WP:SIGCOV is met.

In general terms I would note that the subject here just seems to be a regular non-public figure. An otherwise "normal person", who has (what some people might see as) a pretty cool job. Which got some attention. And more power to him. But I'm not seeing how WP:GNG is met. Separately I would note that an editor, who stated that they were the subject (and probably is/was), attempted to remove poorly or entirely unsourced personal details from the article. Only to see them restored.

Otherwise, there are precisely ZERO news results about the subject (meaning SIGCOV is not met) and ZERO academic works relating to or by the subject (meaning NSCIENTIST is not met). The ONLY piece of content anywhere that seems to discuss the subject directly is that Cake.co microblogging "conversation". But that fails WP:RS by so much as to be (frankly) laughable. In any event, I don't know what criteria could possibly apply to support this article's existence here.... Guliolopez (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've got little to add that Guliolopez hasn't said, but a google search indicates only passing mentions as a citizen scientist. rather clearly fails WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable scientist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I know there isn't much background information about the individual, but he played a relatively major part in his role at NASA ans ESA's image catalog team. User:Raphael.concorde 11:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Raphael.concorde. Please have a quick look at WP:ITSIMPORTANT and related "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". When contributing to an AfD discussion (where the concern is notability) it's best to relate your arguments to this project's notability guidelines. Rather than to considerations which are unrelated to this project or its guidelines. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Hi Guliolopez, thanks for your message. I'll see if I can put together an explanation that meets those templates and guidelines to help resolve the discussion.

Delete. Per nom. Could not find a single quality WP:RS for which the subject was the main topic. No chance of meeting WP:GNG. Not even borderline. Britishfinance (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Records (Pakistan)

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

Non-notable record label, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's current source basically states it was the most important Pakistani label in the decade of the 2000s, and had a virtual monopoly on the market at that time. The article may need to be supplemented with non-English sources, but...if this isn't notable, I doubt any Pakistani label is (which should give us pause). Chubbles (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a language issue, Chubbles. A search for فائر ریکرڈز in Urdu produced nothing of interest. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I counted nearly 30 currently popular Pakistani pop singers that are signed up with Fire Records (Pakistan) recording label – all of them are already listed at the existing article. There was already a working newspaper reference at this article. I'll add some more references tomorrow. Certainly a notable recording label in Pakistan! Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found and added two more newspaper references today. I do not want to close my eyes to worldwide changes in everything including in the music industry. My argument for my 'Keep' vote above is based on the logic that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which also preserves history and the past practices in the music industry. For example, one can very easily find His Master's Voice article of the British music retailer Victor Talking Machine Company trademark and/or "His Master's Voice" (HMV) company with the famous logo of a dog listening to music from an old gramophone vinyl record player. Later RCA Records got involved in it and so on...

So I did what I could to the above article. Somewhat expanded it, has 3 newspaper references now. Made it a 'Stub article' for now, if someone wishes to expand it further. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ngrewal1. Passes notability. Mar4d (talk) 18:48, 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 20:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorceror (horse)

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

This article has been marked as possibly non-notable since 2010. I found a couple old media references, so I'm satisfied the horse existed, but it doesn't seem to have had a particularly impressive career, and there's some question on whether its name was actually "Sorcerer" or "Sorceror", as I found it spelled both ways.

That said, I'm proposing this for deletion mainly so that its disposition can be resolved one way or the other, because it will affect what needs to be done with another page I wanted to fix. Other than this one, I've satisfied myself that all the other subjects mentioned on the disambiguation page Sorceror (a misspelling of "sorcerer") are wrong, meaning that disambiguation page isn't needed. One is a video game whose box art uses the correct spelling of "Sorcerer", another is a recent novel whose cover page uses the correct spelling, and the third is a German movie so its original title isn't in English anyway. That leaves Sorceror (horse) as the only possibly-legitimate subject that might use the misspelling "Sorceror".

So, if Sorceror (horse) is worthy of inclusion, and if the horse's name was truly "Sorceror" and not "Sorcerer", then Sorceror (horse) should be moved to Sorceror, with a link added at the top to the (correctly-spelled) disambiguation page sorcerer. If, as I suspect, Sorceror (horse) is not notable, then it should be deleted, and Sorceror can should go back to being a redirect to Sorcerer (which is what it was until a year ago, when someone changed it for reasons I do not understand). Isomorphic (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There must be more about the poor horse besides his breakdown in that one race but, given that no one has produced anything over a long period of time, I have to say that the article as it is fails the GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, and failing notability guidelines at WP:NHORSE. Ifnord (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ifnord: WP:NHORSE is a redlink. Please can you clarify what you are referring to. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was being silly, there is currently no notability guidelines for horses. Ifnord (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The policy based argument is that this should be deleted or redirected or moved to draft. However, this isn't so cut and dried as we know the clock is ticking. As such, and given the range of policy compliant outcomes that don't involve deletion this feels like no consensus in any direction. In the event they are not elected we can redo this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janeese Lewis George

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

A case of WP:TOOSOON. An earlier PROD was removed citing that a seat on the Council of the District of Columbia automatically meets WP:NPOL - while this is absolutely true, the subject is a candidate for this seat - she does not hold it yet. Being a candidate for a notable position explicitly fails WP:NPOL. Though she is mentioned in the NY Times article, it is not about her, and the Washington Post articles are essentially local coverage in this case. Obviously, if she wins in November, the article should be reinstated. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no "if she wins". She's running unopposed in the general election. Even if she were opposed, in DC the Democratic nominee is the presumptive winner, as its 75% Democrat and 19% Independent. Why would you even nominate this page without proper research? If you bothered to look at the other nominees in the NYT article, you'd see that they all have pages. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete (without prejudice against recreation if she wins in November), alternately Draftify. though she may be the presumptive winner, it's not guaranteed that she will win. stranger things have happened. This is a fail of WP:NPOL until the election is concluded, and she doesn't have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON independently. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid AfD rationale. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How amusing that you cite OSE in the same sentence as you reference other stuff. If she's struck by lighting, as in the example you suggest, the page would be reassessed then. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When she wins the general, why support a page then? By your logic she could still die in between the election and when she takes office. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

amended vote to add acceptability of draftification Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deletion rationale is explicitly foreclosed by the notability guidelines. The top of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, of which WP:NPOL is one, explicitly states that Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included (my bolding). Rather, as described in WP:N, the question of notability always comes down to WP:V: are there enough reliable sources to write a good article about this person?

In this case, there is. Due to her socialist politics and positions on police reform, Lewis George is rapidly emerging as a notable figure in U.S. politics, receiving a 1500-word profile in The Intercept [16] and detailed coverage in the New York Times [17] and a HuffPost article [18], in addition to plenty of coverage in the Washington Post [19], DCist [20], and Washington City Paper [21]. This shows that Lewis George has unambiguously received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Therefore, she passes WP:BASIC and is a notable person. The fact that this coverage was generated in the course of her running for public office is irrelevant to the notability guidelines as written. FourViolas (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington news sources are WP:ROUTINE and/or local news coverage of a city election. It's a mischaracterization to describe the NYtimes article as 'detailed'; all it says is "in Washington, D.C., Janeese Lewis George, a self-described democratic socialist, beat a sitting city councilman whose mailers said Ms. George wanted “to cut police in Ward 4.” She prevailed by 10 percentage points." The Intercept is a good profile and the HuffPost is valid coverage, but IMO there's just not enough there to pass WP:NPERSON; there's no consensus on the reliability of Huffpost and The Intercept is recognized to politically slanted.

It is not Wikipedia's place to decide who will win an election before the election occurs (it's simply too soon), and candidates do not have inherent notability just for running. The question to ask is not whether she will win an election, it's 'excepting that she's probably going to win, is she notable?"and the answer is, no. There's some coverage, yes, because she's a controversial candidate' but it isn't enough to substantiate notability. Though it's often overlooked, WP:BASIC specifically states "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." (my emphasis) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concurrence that she could theoretically be notable prior to being elected, if there were enough secondary sources to meet BASIC.

I disagree that the DC regional sources qualify as "routine". WP:ROUTINE gives announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism [...] Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs,[...] sports matches, film premieres, press conferences as examples of what "routine coverage" means. These barely qualify as journalism; they're cookie-cutter snippets that are repeated over and over, sometimes within the same edition of a paper, with the names and dates changed. In contrast, the DC stories (especially the City Paper piece) go into unique details in creative, non-trivial ways: they describe her political positions, her professional history and life story, the interpersonal dynamics of the race, the historical context for the contest in terms of demographic changes and shifting alliances, notable campaign finance details, etc.

WP:NPERSON doesn't have requirements about the geographical breadth of coverage. WP:NCORP does have a stricter standard, WP:AUD, that requires at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source; I think the NYT (which, you're right, was less detailed than I implied) and Intercept both suffice to show that this page is of potential interest to WP readers outside the DC area. FourViolas (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Bearcat here, and I'd argue that it's still too early to say that she is definitively notable. We have NPOL and guidelines against articles on candidates for a reason, and allowing one because it seems almost definite she will win sets us down a slippery slope. While you may have no doubt whatsoever that historians of 10 years from now will be interested in her (presumably if she doesn't win), I have such doubts and regardless we cannot really be the ones to say what historians may or may not cover.

I think Bearcat is correct in saying that almost all candidates have coverage for running in local papers that cover elections (yes, even the WaPo article is 'local' here). The New York Times article really is no more than a sentence, which doesn't show me that there's interest outside of DC. We are then left with mainly her profile in The Intercept which I'd argue isn't enough to substantiate notability at this point by itself. I agree that she probably will win, and we can revisit the article then. However, Wikipedia isn't in the business of hosting candidate's biographies until they actually do definitively meet notability thresholds. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates for city council are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy The article until the elections happen in November, if they even go ahead, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON Seasider91 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Essentially an elected candidate as she is running unopposed. No point deleting an article just to recreate it in a couple of months. WP:COMMONSENSE. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her win is all but assured. She has also received plenty of coverage in multiple RS. KidAd (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in November if she wins. Draftify also acceptable. The fact that she's currently running unopposed is not, in and of itself, an exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL the normal way — things can still happen that can still cause an unopposed candidate to never actually assume the office at all: even unopposed candidates have actually been forced to resign for health or political scandal reasons, or died before election day, and thus never actually assumed the office they were running for. So unopposed on the ballot or not, she still has to actually hold the seat, not just be a candidate, before she actually qualifies for an article. And no, the fact that campaign coverage exists is not in and of itself a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL, either: campaign coverage of every candidate in every election always exists, so if that were how it worked then NPOL would be inherently meaningless because nobody would ever actually have to pass it anymore. So to argue that a candidate is somehow more special than other candidates, it is not enough to show that campaign coverage existed: what's necessary is to show that even if she dies or resigns before election day and thus never actually assumes the office at all, her candidacy has still somehow become so uniquely important that people will still be looking for information about it in 2030 anyway. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL explicitly states that an unelected candidate for political office [...] can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. If we actually followed this perfectly clear rule, NPOL would not be inherently meaningless: it would simply state that people who have held sufficiently high political offices can be safely presumed to have enough coverage to be notable.

Separately, I have no doubt whatsoever that historians of 10 years from now will be interested to know that a socialist woman of color, running on a platform of defunding the police, won the only contested stage of an election for the city council of the U.S. capitol in 2020 amid national mass demonstrations against racialized police brutality. FourViolas (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would make NPOL inherently meaningless. Every single person who's ever been involved in politics at all — mayors, city councillors, school board trustees, parks and library and planning committee members, non-winning candidates for office, and on and so forth — can always show three or four hits of campaign coverage without exception, so if showing three or four hits of campaign coverage were all it took to hand such people a GNG-based exemption from having to meet NPOL, then every single person involved in politics would always earn that exemption. Literally nobody would ever even have to be measured against NPOL at all anymore, because literally nobody involved in politics could ever fail to be exempted from it if a handful of campaign coverage were all it took to earn the exemption. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear whether you read the sourcing, don't understand it, or just don't care. She has had abundant national coverage that is wholly different from "three or four hits of campaign coverage". Bangabandhu (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It is not remotely true that every library committee member and school board trustee in the U.S. has been the primary subject of full-length articles in the Washington Post, the Intercept, and multiple regional newspapers. It is true that applying the NPOL guideline correctly (as written) would cause a number of articles on candidates for subnational office to be kept, allowing voters and historians to rely on Wikipedia for reliably sourced, substantial information about the details of the world's political landscape; I fail to see how this is an argument against doing so. FourViolas (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that every library committee member and school board trustee in the US has been the subject of coverage in the Washington Post — but every library committee member and school board trustee in the US most certainly has been the subject of coverage in their local papers, and the Washington Post is the local paper of a person who's doing those things in Washington DC. It's also a principle of NPOL that people who would ordinarily fail NPOL (library committee members, school board trustees, non-winning candidates for office, etc.) are not automatically more special just because they happen to live in a major city, so that their purely expected local-interest coverage happens to be appearing in a more prestigious newspaper than the purely expected local-interest coverage of other people doing the exact same things in other cities is appearing in — the Washington Post most certainly does still cover local interest figures in local interest contexts that wouldn't ordinarily clear our notability standards, and those people aren't automatically more special than everybody else just because they're doing not inherently notable things in Washington instead of Peoria and thus have their routinely expected local coverage showing up in the Washington Post instead of the Peoria Journal Star. GNG does still test for the context of what the person is getting covered for, and deprecate some contexts as less notability-making than other contexts. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep WP:IAR. The subject does not pass WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate as Bearcat describes. And our general precedent encourages us discount local coverage of campaign coverage as WP:ROUTINE (the race is notable, the candidates may not be). However, common sense should apply in this situation and it's not worth the effort to split hairs and address all of the scenarios that could occur that prevent the subject from winning the election or taking office (write-in campaign, death, etc.). Unlike a solid keep, which would generally preclude revisiting the discussion, my vote is conditional or contingent on the candidate winning election. --Enos733 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question My knowledge of AfD process is dated, but isn't it a requirement to notify previous editors of the page that this is under consideration? I don't think that's been done in this case. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangabandhu, per WP:AfD "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." the creator (yourself) was notified. I suppose it wouldn't be out of place to notify Sheilafrazier22 and Wikipedia:WikiProject District of Columbia and WP:PLT. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL in its purest sense. I don't see any mitigating reason, in the discussion abovem to keep it. It can be recreated in November, if needed.scope_creep^Talk 14:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: As per AlessandroTiandelli333 and Enos733. Overall, FourViolas comment is the most complete and proper point in the whole of discussion. I, in particular, agree with his points on WP:N and WP:NPERSON. Also, it is clearly stated in the notability guideline for politicians that the subject may still be notable even if he misses on the criteria (barely misses) which is subject to the group of wikipedians examining the notability to decide. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's running unopposed for an office that will make her hit the notability threshold. Deleting only to recreate when she's formally appointed is process wonkery. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing this with a no consensus result, with no prejudice against speedy renomination as separate, individual deletion discussions for each place. At this time it is clear that this bundled nomination has included too many entries that can be comfortably handled, relative to the discourse of the discussion, how the discussion has transpired, and how it is coming across from participants that some entries may be notable while others may not be. One may wonder why this is being closed with as no consensus with all of the "keep" !votes present. Most of the keep !votes later on in the discussion are addressing single entries in the nomination. Some !votes have stated that a procedural keep is in order, while others have stated "delete all". The discussion has broken down into commentary about individual entries, and at this time participants are not addressing the nomination as a whole, which is another factor that has turned the discussion into a WP:TRAINWRECK of sorts. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aaitabare

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

I am nominating this and all other articles in Category:Populated places in BayarbanKeroun VDC nepal as bad faith trolling/hoax creations from User:Bayarban,keroun hamro gau. Also nominating ~~other categories,~~ redirects and articles created by the same user under this username or via socks.

Articles in Category:Populated places in BayarbanKeroun VDC nepal

The titles likely represent real neighbourhoods in and around Bayarban VDC in Morang District. But these are not places that meet WP:NGEO. The articles themselves follow the template of VDC articles created by User: Encyclopædius (eg. Bayarban), and include nonsensical modifications. Note the populations of these places: Bhausabari has 1082 people, but so does Bihibare. Aaitabare, Bargachhi, Dumrighat and Ghaletol have 10802 people (one digit inserted into the previous figure) and Harakpur has 1080 people (trailing 2 removed from the previous figure). Aaitabare, Bargachhi, Dumrighat and Ghaletol have 2082 households, Bihibare has 208 and Bhausabari has 202 (same pattern as before). The talkpage of the user gives some hint as to why they might have done this.

Other places (articles and redirects)

I am nominating Ramailo, Nepal created by their sock User:Mero ramailo, and the redirect Ramailo which was created by the same user with nonsensical claims but was later redirected to the former. Ramailo is not one of the VDCs listed in the sources. Also nominating Bayarban Keroun which is a duplicate of Bayarban but there is no evidence that it's a valid alternative name to keep it as a redirect (if anyone would like to find evidence, I have no objections). Bayarbankeroun is another duplicate, later redirected. For lack of evidence that it is a valid alt name, nominating this redirect as well.

Schools (private and public)

I nominate Shree Janasewa Higher Secondary School created by one of the socks. It is unsourced; I don't feel like looking for sources to legitimise a troll's work. I have no strong objections to keeping this though, as the lead image indicates it's real. Also nominating Triveni Baljagat English School created by the same editor which needs to meet WP:NORG but is currently unsourced (no evidence that it's real from what's given in the article). Also nominating Pearl Academy English School for the same reason.

~~I am starting to get lost, so I am hitting publish. I will clean it up and add further information as I dig it up. Any assistance would be welcome.~~ Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These places are not among the old VDCs or the newly created municipalities, and there are no legally recognised villages below that level. So, no, they do not meet GEOLAND. Notice how the same user also created Kanepokhari but I have not nominated it because that name was later given to a real municipality. Also, the new divisions were first recommended in 2017 (Kathmandu Post) while these articles were all created in 2012. I did not say the titles were fakes. There are places (sometimes multiple, sometimes in other countries too) with these names, but the article content is fabricated (as I've shown in my nom) and there are no places in Morang District with these names that meet GEOLAND. Look at the history of the Kanepokhari article. It was created by this user with fake content, claiming that it was a VDC (the lowest legally recognised unit). Another user later converted it into a municipality article in 2017 and said in the edit summary There was no Kanepokhari VDC but only Village. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I recently came across something similar. An Indian sock farm that was churning out dozens of bullshit geo stubs. Some of the places probably existed but much of the content was just made up and the sources were copy pasted from one article to another. Apparently some people think geostubs are a low risk way of pushing up their edit count without being detected. This junk is probably a good case for TNT. Mccapra (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra, yeah NGEO is the easiest to crack, isn't it? India has some 600,000 villages, and there isn't even a definitive structure/hierarchy/list as we have with Nepal, from what I can tell from their administrative divisions article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (procedural), what a dog's breakfast of an afd! nominator has bundled numerous (20+?) articles together, has included categories, wrong forum! should be listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, and included a redirect, again wrong forum, should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, on top of this they allege that the editor who created the majority of these articles also used socks to create some of these, a serious allegation, but hasn't bothered following this up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, on top of this they more or less admit how rediculous/unworkable this afd is with the struck out statement above "I am starting to get lost, so I am hitting publish. I will clean it up and add further information as I dig it up. Any assistance would be welcome." umm, no Usedtobecool, an afd is not an article that can be edited/improved, you should never have "hit publish" in its present state. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coolabahapple, it is crossed out because it is no longer relevant. It was relevant when I was writing the nom in Twinkle, and it ended up being more extensive that I had in mind when I started and I knew it was gonna be a mess when I hit publish, which I needed to do to properly organise and format the nom. I don't see how having one category in the mix compromises the integrity so much that it has to be redone. If everyone feels that seriously about having a cat at AFD, I can withdraw the cat nom. It will be easily dealt with later on. I don't think redirects need a separate RfD. It's in the mainspace and fits the bundling. The point about the sock allegation did occur to me as something that might be a problem, since the justification for the bundling partly depends on that being true. I am not sure SPI takes stale cases. Do you know that it does? Perhaps, I should post at AN about this?! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep. These appear to be legitimate settlements and the nomination is an utter mess in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I bring up 10 hoax articles to attention and all everyone cares about is whether I got the procedures right? I have withdrawn the nomination of the category. Do with the articles whatever you please. It's not like anyone finds those articles anyway. I give up trying to convince anyone of anything. The facts are all there if anyone cares to read. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. None of these are notable are most of them are either blatant hoaxes or so incompetently implemented as to be indistinguishable from hoaxes. To be honest you would have been better off just putting a WP:PROD on each one, but it's too late for that now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathan A Jones: and @PJvanMill: see Aaitabare and Ramailo, Nepal!† Encyclopædius 20:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, in agreement with Jonathan A Jones. I oppose the "procedural keep" reasoning, which is in direct conflict with WP:NOTCOURT. PJvanMill (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep If Coolabahapple says this is a dog's breakfast, I say this is a cup of hot fat with a hair in it. The website that these are sourced to doesn't work and I can't find anything else in English, but a simple search shows that Ramailo and Keroun should not be deleted as they're not hoaxes, and schools are specifically exempted from WP:NORG. At least some of these should definitely be kept. I'm happy to go back and !vote delete on individual articles which are clearly unverifiable, but what we have here is a bunch of stubs which look to me to pass WP:NGEO and have incorrect populations. SportingFlyer T·C 14:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of these should definitely be kept I would contest that. Schools may be exempt from WP:NORG, but they are not exempt from notability altogether. Just the Nepal census as a source is not enough for notability, either. I've looked at each of these articles, and they all fall hopelessly short of significant coverage. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An official census meets a legally defined place per WP:NGEO, which is one of the lowest notability standards we have. Schools do need coverage, but the school notability needs to be discussed on the merits, and not mixed in with other articles. The main reason for this nomination are hoaxes and failing WP:NGEO, and because at least some of them pass WP:NGEO and at least some of them are clearly not hoaxes, we can't bulk delete all of these. I would be in favour of deleting those that absolutely cannot be verified, or having a second AfD, but this one is badly flawed. SportingFlyer T·C 02:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated 10 articles as hoaxes; all of them assert 4 basic facts: what they are, where they are, how many households they have and how many people are in them. All articles are correct that those are places in Morang District. The rest are blatant lies. None of them are VDCs, and both the households and population are blatant fabrications. They don't meet NGEO as legally recognised places because VDCs are the lowest levels with legal recognition, but the notability doesn't figure into it when 3 out the only 4 things they have are blatant lies. I added three more articles that don't meet WP:V into that list because they came from the same user who can't be AGFed to get correct content without WP:V. I obviously messed up how bundling works at AFD, but I didn't mess up the things I could have foreseen. Bundling explicitly cites creation of the same user as reason to bundle. Someone taking one article and creating a completely different article under the same title doesn't change the fact that the article I nominated was effectively deleted in the process, and the rest of them still exist with 3 blatant fabrications out of the only four claims they make. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with deleting articles on legitimate subjects is that if a new editor decides to restart them they see a forbidding warning on a salmon background saying something like:

A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.

That would discourage the editor from contributing. Better to clear away the inaccurate information, and perhaps use Google Maps or geonames to get reasonable coordinates. That leaves a stub that can be expanded. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2, that would be a problem with all deletions that we do; we do them nonetheless. Nobody watches these kind of articles, and things like these go unfixed forever. But, if we do have editors like you willing to put in the effort to fix them, that's clearly a better outcome than deletion, and I have only thanks to offer you. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a village named Aitabare, Bayarban at 26°38′25″N 87°29′58″E / 26.640405°N 87.499579°E / 26.640405; 87.499579. This site confirms existence, but with different coords. Mindat gives the same wrong coords. According to this site the Jankalyan Secondary School is in the village. The Aaitabare article is probably meant to represent this village, but the coordinates are wrong, and the population is nothing to do with anything as the nominator points out, so the article as it stands is useless. I would not assume bad faith though, and perhaps some of the articles could be recovered if there are interested editors. Best would be to withdraw this omnibus AfD and start individual AfDs that refer back to the discussion here. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aaitabare, which now redirects to Aitabare (both spellings are used), which has been expanded enough to clearly meet WP:NGEO. This without prejudice to the above comment on splitting up this AfD into separate discussions for each article. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aaitabare per the great expansion of Aymatth2.† Encyclopædius 20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ramailo, Nepal, a valid stub. I will clean it up. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, thanks to Aymatth2 for the above ..... and another bundled afd begins to unravel. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ditto below.....Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ramailo, Nepal per the great expansion of Aymatth2.† Encyclopædius 20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Janasewa Secondary School, which seems to be notable enough for a secondary school affiliated with the Higher Secondary Education Board. The student numbers seem a bit confused, but I am sure that can be sorted out. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Janasewa Secondary School, per the great expansion of Aymatth2.† Encyclopædius 20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Batch AfDs should only be used for sets of articles that are substantially similar to each other. There are way too many disparate articles here, and just too many articles period. Nominating these in smaller batches will make things much smoother. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 06:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bhausabari I fixed it up. Seems to meet WP:NGEO. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bihibare I fixed it up. Seems to meet WP:NGEO. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Daleli A real enough place, but not much information about it. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harakpur. Seems to meet WP:NGEO now. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 15:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Nystrom

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

I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. She does not meet notability guidelines for politicians, as she has only held local office and has not received national coverage - only local/regional coverage. Obviously, if she were to win the upcoming election, she would be considered notable and the article could be re-instated. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a candidate for congress is not a sign of notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for campaign brochures we do not create articles on people before elected except in very, very rare cases with very large coverage which this is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all SIGCOV is from local sources. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. She fails WP:NPOL because she is an unsuccessful candidate. If she gets elected in November, then she can get an article. LefcentrerightDiscuss 23:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON, being a candidate not enough, and WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP is not a publicity vehicle. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. If she wins in November, we can re-address. Bkissin (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation on or after November 3 if she wins. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR platform for aspiring future officeholders to publicize or promote their campaigns — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and candidates who do not have preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy are not entitled to be included here unless and until they win the seat. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat, but currently it is WP:TOOSOON. NavjotSR (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 18:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Goldman (cricketer)

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

Fails WP:GNG - BeamAlexander (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how it fails notability, it was my understanding that First-Class cricket was sufficient grounds for a page given a large amount of stubs for players who have represented Australian states in first-class cricket. i.e.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Botten JagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping this works (not too familiar with wiki functions) but pinging JTtheOG (talk · contribs) (as he approved previous articles for cricketers, and as such I presume is familiar with the cricket side of wikipedia?) JagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not 100% sure about NCRIC but definitely seems to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @JagarTharnofTamriel: Definitely passes NCRIC; first-class (FC) matches are a suitable criteria, and he even represented Queensland in their inaugural FC game, interestingly. Now for GNG I think it's important to keep in mind that he did play in the 20th century. The vast majority of players from this era and even more recent ones probably are not gonna have 10 different articles written solely about them, as you might expect of an athlete in 2020. That's why I don't think players from older eras should be penalized for playing in a time when there was barely any sports coverage in the first place and all you might hope to find besides that are mentions in articles/sites written decades later. I know it can be tough to find good sources with these older sports biographies, even if they're definitely notable in their own right (1950s NBA players, 1930s NFL players, 1910s MLB players, etc). I could be looking at it the wrong way, but that's pretty much my take. JTtheOG (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, state rep meets WP:NCRIC. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State representative who has played cricket at the highest domestic level in Australia. Please take a little time to read WP:NCRIC before nominating. StickyWicket (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a first-class cricketer and as someone who played in the first first-class match for "his" state. Would be nice to get some more information, however, as some contemporary newspaper references call him "Albert" rather than "Arthur". Johnlp (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purnell's Old Folks Country Sausage

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

Promotional and not sure if its notable 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and not notability. I dont see why it would be. Adamant1 (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Adamant1. Mccapra (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has been on AFD for a month and we are pretty evenly divided in numbers and quality. Time to wrap up. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Blake

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

I couldn't find anything in the sources that actually prove notability. n.1) IAFD (not reliable), n.2) this one is the only one I am not sure: I can't find anything about the author and I believe this book it self is not enough to prove notability, n.3) its autobiography, n.4) i found it online here all I could find was a passing mention of his name, n.5,6,7) its autobigraphy, n.8) a very short bio in Tabernacle Baptist Church Atlanta that definitely doesn't prove notability. So, putting all together we have a passing mention on a good book, a book that I believe not being "relevant". AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GNG. While sources mentioned by nom, are indeed questionable, sources in Further Reading section are much better, and IMO do go over the threshold. Ipsign (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in "Further Reading" 2 articles are about a small "scandal" not really going toward notoriety, but the gaywired one looks ok. Still, I don't think that a passing mention on a good book, a book of no relevance and an article on gaywired sum up to notoriety.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:18, 12 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) 05:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't have that many articles on people of his demographic (second-career African-American clergy), so it fills a niche.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of criteria of WP:NACTOR being fulfilled. In detail: I see no evidence of significant roles in multiple notable films, large fan base, or unique contribution. Hekerui (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: ONe more relist as this is a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

clearly fails notability guidelines for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still unsure of consensus, maybe after relisting this once more we can achieve consensus. If after this relist no additional comments are provided, will close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A a s i m 08:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't seem to be secondary in-depth coverage in multiple sources about the person and they have no notable film roles. Also, the suggestion that the article should be kept just because it fills a niche is extremely questionable. Either the subject meets the requirments of notability or it doesnt. In this case it doesnt. Adamant1 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this journal article is a sustained analysis entirely focused on Blake. Between this and the book, which interprets Blake and his work at length, I think we have a pass of GNG. The range of other sources, such as the coverage of the news scandal and this extremely brief book review may be useful to flesh out the article, but those are the two that I think show notability. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 05:23, 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. czar 15:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Design Indaba speakers

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

No evidence that this meets the notability criteria WP:NOTESAL. Only references are to the conference website. Rathfelder (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and no reliable independent sources. Ajf773 (talk) 08:09, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Tapia

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

Teresa does not appear to have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The bulk of the coverage is about her husband, and/or mentions her only in passing. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxing manager.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATED In response to User:The Squirrel Conspiracy Removed any references that highlighted her client/husband and only kept references that mention her as his manager before and after his passing. Removed unnecessary stats about the client/husband. Thart1986 (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATED In response to User:Johnpacklambert Added references and sources that verify her role as a boxing manager. Defined the career range. Not a celebrity boxing manager. Thart1986 (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is not enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. At least one of the sources is a press release. DiamondRemley39 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wrong venue, no valid deletion rationale given. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship

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

I can only apologise for accidentally blanking the page before listing it for deletion, which definitely will not happen again. However, this article started off as a redirect for the "China-Nepal relations" without any actual text about the title of the article. Due to it not displaying properly, a proper article was then created under the name "Sino-Nepalese Treaty of Peace and Friendship". Due to the creation of the later article, I think that this article is now redundant and should be deleted. Apologies if this doesn't look verifiable, but the fact that I created a page of almost the same name should tell you that this page started off simply as a redirect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kip1234 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have fixed the formatting of the AFD page (or tried to, someone should double-check since I never do manual). The article was a redirect, but it was blanked before nominating, and this is going to be a speedy keep anyway, so I think the discussion need not be moved to RfD. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: The nominator should withdraw this perhaps too WP:BOLD a nomination. It was a redirect to Nepal-China relations because that was the most closely related article. Since you have created one on the exact topic, the redirect should be re-targeted to your article, which I have now done. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:42, 7 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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This would be a redirect if it did not have the AFD notice on it. The name is a credible search term, so that it is absolutely correct to have it as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 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. SpinningSpark 16:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holoxica Limited

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

Article fails WP:NCORP. Also elements of WP:PROMOTION Angryskies (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has enough mentions in reliable sources to be notable, and it isn't that promotional in tone. Either it's promotional enough to warrant G11 or it isn't, and deletion isn't cleanup. PrussianOwl (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most of the sources are unverifiable, and go to 404 pages. Netherzone (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For one, the article is clearly promotional and would take a fundamental re-write to not be. While I agree generally that AfDs aren't cleanup, you can still include something like WP:TNT in an AfD that involves other reasons for deletions like lack of notability and the subject of the article is clearly not notable. On the sourcing, the first source is an interview with/about the founder. Which isn't neutral. Same could go for #6. The others either seem like trivial coverage (product releases and awards) or are dead links that sound by the titles as more of the same. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:56, 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! 06:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As clearly promotional. The only kind of coverage I can find (besides that described in the article by Adamant1) is further trivial mentions, nothing sufficient to substantiate notability. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User Holoxica started this article and the self-promotion is painfully obvious. --Lockley (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11. Sandstein 12:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015 New York City pressure cooker bomb plot

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing about this article indicates it is any different from the foiled terrorist plots mentioned in the List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11 article. An attack hasn't even been attempted in this case. This country has also seen many other cases of female Islamic extremists, so that angle wouldn't make this noteworthy either. If deleted, any relevant information from this article can be moved to that one, because it does need mentioning there. Love of Corey (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That incident seems to be significant because of tentative connections with international terrorist organizations. As page tells, "Siddiqui was in contact with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, while Velentzas seemed to support the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)", and this is sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All other foiled terrorist plots have a connection to terror organizations or otherwise motivated by support. Do every one of them have articles? No. That's not a particularly standout fact. Love of Corey (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I do not see it included to the List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11. I do agree that not all terrorist plots are notable. However, those linked to famous international organizations (like ISIS or Al Qaeda) and covered in multiple RS I think are all notable enough to deserve a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I said anything relevant can be merged to that article. And this article doesn't have a lot of RS to support notability like you say. Love of Corey (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 21:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11. Not notable to have its own standalone article. Natg 19 (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree because this story continued for 5 years, it was widely covered in press, and it resulted in convictions in 2020 [22]. And BTW, I would like this to be closed by an administrator, unlike [23]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence that "this story continued for 5 years"? Even though the women were not sentenced until 2020, that does not prove that this incident was significant or noteworthy. Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a lot of books [24], and a lot of news [25] covering a period of time from 2015 to 2020. If this is not a notable case, I do not know what is. My very best wishes (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there are general news reports of their conviction, their guilty plea and their sentencing. The books show passing mentions. I'm not seeing significant coverage or enduring notability of the bomb plot. Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a passing mention in books. See here, here, etc. Books consider this as an important case, and dedicate sub-chapters to it. Enduring significance? Yes, the sources cover last 5 years, and given the multiple publications in books, this is apparently a historical case. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems like lasting significance is there. Just a few months ago there was another round of coverage after her sentencing: ABC News, NY Times, NBC New York, AP, CNN... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only after five years or so of no coverage. I wouldn't exactly call that long-lasting coverage. More like the "Where are they now?" kind of coverage. Love of Corey (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the merge target mentioned above. There's only trivial coverage of the actual bomb plot. Which is what the article is about. If the the lady who was involved in it is still getting coverage for things related to her make an article about her then and mention the plot there, but her sentencing is no longer about the event of the plot itself that the article is about IMO. Plus, the article kind of goes against the single event rule anyway. Especially since it was just a plot, that never led to anything, and didnt have an aftermath (like an actual bombing would). Adamant1 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per notnews: if all the coverage of a criminal is directly tied to one or two key moments (the immediate aftermath of the crime, major steps in the legal process) that's a clear sign that it's just routine news coverage. --JBL (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11. From WP:EVENTCRITERIA: Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. —Rutebega (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Music in Media Awards

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

Niche awards show with no assertion of notability. All references are churnalistic re-reporting on press releases. The lead, in fact, also reads like a press release. When it claims that a show that started only 6 years ago has suddenly become a major predictor of Oscar winners, it's hard to see that as anything other than puffery. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the one paragraph of prose in the whole article is also largely copyvio from the website's own "about" page [26].Richard3120 (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

have removed the copyvio, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is significant enough to be covered in reliable sources such as Billboard, Variety and Hollywood Reporter as shown in the article, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see lightly edited duplicates of press releases as "significant coverage" as defined at WP:GNG. Per WP:NEWSORG, re-reporting of press releases is "churnalism" and does not count as a reliable source. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:07, 25 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) 22:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence at all presented that the coverage is from press releases, they look to be bylined pieces. If the awards are notable enough to be covered in reliable sources then we should include them, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:NEWSORG, "Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release." I'm not saying that any sources are literally press releases; I am asserting that the sources are so minimally changed from press releases that they are functionally equivalent to them and do not qualify as RS under this guideline. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disagree, take the Billboard piece which seems to be from a reporter at the event: "The ceremony itself was an endless stream of technical mishaps with many absent winners" - hard to imagine that coming off a press release, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Note that a user has posted a message on the talk page for this AfD discussion, here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay...firstly, let me start by stating I am new to the editing platform of Wikipedia. I appreciate those whom comment to obtain truth and responsibility for information regarding the subject. While reading the rules and procedures I ended up in this talk page. Hopefully, with this submission I will be able to comprehend the scope of deletion and possibly have constructive consideration for non-deletion. Before I continue I would like to inform those who read and reply that again I am looking for help with these Wiki articles and anything that could lead to insightful editing or encompass significant change to the subject matter would be highly appreciative at this time. I was involved with Hollywood Music in Media Awards I 2009 as a volunteer during the begin creation of the award show. As a paid CoI by Brent Harvey found with Hmmaward and on behalf of the Hollywood Music in Media organization I would like to start a discussion. Though limited in my technological understanding of the wiki platform it has come to my attention of the years that this wiki page has been created. I will begin the process of trying to gather the information needed to meet the standard guidelines and I request any help from peer editors in which they can open the dialog between us to keep the award show from becoming deleted. At this time information regarding its creation and the problematic areas are welcomed within review to show cohesive response to the building of accurate, factual, and correspondent knowledge about the Hmmawards organization. Throughout the years I have grown in the music industry and frequently been involved in the growth from the experiences from Hmmawards. This award show outlet will change the layout in which information is presented and connect added links from award winners, media sources, and relevant wiki music awards news. The entertainment industry is a vast network of links in which the Hmmawards have been prevalent since 2009. This July we will make the decision on the platform which the event will be annually held in amidst of the global pandemic. Studios and networks want to be involved with the hmmawards. As well as industry professionals, students, composers, and visual media mediums worldwide. I would like to purpose an administrator to elect certain editing restrictions to help the legitimacy in the information being added until the wiki article is updated and reviewed. At this time the appeal for non-deletion is being made and I am grateful the work from previous contributions and look forward to finding some compromise in this community to include Hmmawards which has become bellwether to those in the industry looking for representation such as our music supervisors which have become equally more relevant in the last decade since Hmmawards founded. Thanks for you time and consideration.Jrocksgibson (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jrocksgibson: Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. The primary purpose of this discussion is to establish if the HMMAs are notable, which is the primary metric for determining if something belongs on Wikipedia. At this time, the sources in the article are unclear on how important the HMMAs are within the industry, how prestigious they are, etc. If you can point us to any published articles about the HMMAs themselves and the role they play within the film music industry, and not merely reporting on winners/nominees, that would go a long way in establishing that the HMMAs are notable and should be covered by Wikipedia instead of the article being deleted. Cheers, Axem Titanium (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - (@Axem Titanium: Thank you for welcoming me to the Wiki community. I have been reading throughout the information here so please bare with me while I try to educate myself on procedures and standards for the Wikipedia database and have indeed determined the question regarding notable and would like to help share articles about HMMAs. To my knowledge this article was created unknowingly to the organization which is why we'd like to establish the sources in the proceeding conversations. I appreciate your patience at this time although we will contribute the known importances HMMAs have been involved in the last decade in helping the industry in a largely growing technological world. Your guidance at this time is helpful and I will look forward in restructuring the layout and criteria to introduce HMMAs the wiki platform in a more conclusive manner that reflects how prestigious the organization became, the origins, notable causes, and our relevance within the industry HMMAs has grown. We do not wish to simply merely report on winners/nominees but entail the role HMMAs takes in the Entertainment, Film, and Music industries. I welcome any more dialog within the community in the days unfolding that will help answer questions on subject regarding notable or sources and any tips that help cover an insightful Wikipedia article. Thank you for the timely response! Stay safe. I will be updating the info requested all day tomorrow Jrocksgibson (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi Jrocksgibson, before you go to town, I would recommend reading up on conflicts of interest with regards to Wikipedia editing. I'm not sure what your current relationship is with HMMA, but the best thing you can do right now is to look for external sources (like articles published online) that demonstrate why HMMA is a notable awards body. You don't need to and probably shouldn't directly edit the article for now. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - (@Axem Titanium: Today is the first time I was aware of the dynamics in Wiki. The expertise in your recommendations hold much validity in this conversation. I plan on sharing what I have soon in this thread sry if using the wrong terms. I am eager to learn! I want my relationship with HMMA to be truly transparent. I volunteered during 2009 and years prior have received emails and followed the organization via social media ever since in my career as an outsider non affiliated. During my reads today on conflicts of interest I decided in my introduction to make aware that I was asked to help contribute on behalf of Brent Harvey and The Hollywood Music in Media Awards organization to help the article in question. I was offered payment though no monetary or related attributions were agreed upon. Simply like many I am interested in Wiki articles and furthermore will only follow the guidelines and procedures the best of my acknowledgment. When I was introduced to HMMAs I volunteered which is the premise of Wiki editors. Here on Wiki I am again wanting to volunteer my time in providing a better understanding to the question asked above so the article can be fairly seen in respects by editors like yourself. Until more is clearly known I will continue to communicate here and prodominantly rely on assistance and helpful guidance in which will help adhere to binary openess in the resources to be reviewed, adapted, and shown. Thank you for responding in the best practical approaches to help service the wiki community. I look forward to expanding in our findings.Jrocksgibson (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Certainly. As for the topic at hand, if you know of any published articles (in print or online) that discuss the impact of HMMA on the industry or its value in the community, that would be helpful in determining the outcome of this deletion discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add the most relevant sources I have found that mention the above request. Please bare with me as I am trying to navigate this each day while learning new information about how to do this in respects to the community and validity of this article.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/multi-talented-singer-dancer-shevyn-183941246.html

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/hollywood-music-media-awards-sam-833164

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6737344/hollywood-music-in-media-awards-sam-smith-lady-gaga-brian-wilson

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/hollywood-music-media-awards-hunting-839623

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6760930/hollywood-music-in-media-awards

https://www.shootonline.com/newsbriefs/nominees-unveiled-hollywood-music-media-awards/archived_node

http://soundtrackfest.com/en/news/hollywood-music-in-media-awards-2016/

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/evanescences-amy-lee-wins-hollywood-music-and-media-award-for-speak-to-me-from-film-voice-from-the-stone/?fbclid=IwAR1ZTQdHb-

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/hollywood-music-media-awards-full-winners-list-1057748/item/original-score-feature-film-1057700

https://behindtheaudio.com/2017/10/hollywood-music-media-awards-announces-nominees-film-tv-video-game-music/

https://www.shootonline.com/node/82487

https://www.timeslive.co.za/tshisa-live/tshisa-live/2019-11-22-ndlovu-youth-choir-wins-hollywood-music-award/ Jrocksgibson (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at these sources and I don't think they are what we should be looking for. Significant coverage should be about the awards themselves, what they mean for the industry, what the bona fides of the body are, etc, not merely reporting on nominees and winners. These articles are glorified press releases---a bunch of them from different websites even include the exact same paragraph! "If last year's HMMA voting is any indication, then the HMMAs are as strong a predictor of best original song and best original score Golden Globe and Oscar noms as any of the awards that precede those -- all five HMMA score nominees were also nominated for the corresponding Golden Globe, and the HMMAs were the only notable precursor award to even nominate the song "Lost Stars" (they actually gave it their best original song prize) en route to its Oscar nom." It's clear that they either published a press release from HMMA directly as if it were news or did so little modification that it's functionally a press release. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that additional comments have been posted on the talk page for this AfD discussion, here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists of winners are not sigcov, but these articles are, at least as I see it. They may not be what I'd call "interesting" but they are not press releases, and two reliable sources is enough to squeak by the GNG. —Rutebega (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Hollywood Reporter article you linked is an exact copy of this Billboard article. That leads me to believe both articles were copied/derived from a press release. I'm not finding any obvious copy and paste versions of the Variety article, but that remains to be seen. Either way, 90+% of the prose of that article is just writing out categories and winners in sentences instead of bullet points. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rutebega adequately found a few independent, reliable sources that cover this topic well. Additionally, while I don’t think lists of winners or regurgitated press releases are the best, I do think the large quantity of reporting on the awards, both within and without wikipedia, makes having an article explaining what they are conducive to the goals of this project. Mysteryman blue 08:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus has only hardened after the relist and the badgering of voters is getting painful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Traefik

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

Non-notable software with no in-depth reliable independent sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. None of the sources in the article are independent -- every one is tied to the software/developer -- either directly to documentation, tutorial, to their company website, or as press release. The closest are two interviews from medium.com and frenchgo.fr, but again, not independent. Web search does bring up a lot of mentions, but I don't see any significant coverage like independent reviews or achievement discussions for WP:NSOFT, mostly tutorials and directory entries. "Used a lot" is not a criteria for notability.

The article was accepted from AfC (albeit not by a reviewer), so bringing to AfD instead of moving back. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find any reference to "used a lot" in the link you included, the section you linked mentions popularity and word-of-mouth, but doesn't specifically address actual references to the subject being utilized - which I would argue does imply notability.

I did a search using google books and news, and found several independent sources of Traefik being presented as subject matter in printed material, in addition to a number of use cases, tutorials, and explanations of what Traefik is and it's relation to modern software development. Would citing more of these sources increase the legitimacy of the article? Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can cite or just link sources. If they satisfy WP:GNG, then they can be used to establish notability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some additional references establishing notability, as I felt these met the criteria set forth in WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. I'd like to hear feedback from you along with any other editors also if there are other improvements which can be made to this article. Thank you for your feedback and contribution to the discussion.Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot access the papers. In what capacity do they discuss it? Simply referencing is not really enough, even though it can indicate a wider use and potential notability. But it still has to be shown with sourcing. None of the other ones are significant coverage of the subject. They don't discuss the subject, they are using it as part of their own work. Kind of like if the subject was a "shovel", but the source was about "how to dig with shovels". It's not a commentary/discussion of the subject. But that's my interpretation, and other editors can comment further. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nKT A L K 12:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added multiple references to books and research articles which include Traefik in the subject-matter and discuss the software capabilities and use-cases. Many of these references have been included in my most recent edits. To clarify the inaccessible research/acedemic articles and further notability as defined by independent reviews please see below:

· Traefik [5] is a reverse proxy that hiding internal services, and route a specific traffic to a pre-designated local server that behind of firewall or gateway. In addition, this makes it possible to balance the load, and under development within an open source community. ^[1] · Traefik is the subject of multiple verified reviews ^[2]

I believe notability has been met under the requirements set forth in WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the belief of the article's creator and primary editor, not a notable software. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Even the material that I did find deals mostly with the Docker platform. A brief summary of what's in this article could easily be included as a section in Docker (software). Article creator should probably do that now. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally deleted but per argument on my talkpage I have relisted to allow.discussion of additional mentions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The criteria set forth in WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT is met by the following:

This reference is from a printed book on Mesos / Marathon, which isn't at all related to Docker:

"Traefik is a load balancer, a.k.a. proxy, working on layer 7. It works on a very simple concept that has been around since Apache and PHP. Traefik parses HTTP requests and passes them to matching services. We can achieve similar functionality with Apache, nginx, or HAProxy, but only Traefik comes with built-in Marathon support"^[3].

There are books published on Kubernetes as well, which include references to Traefik:

There is a book written in German which has an entire chapter dedicated to Traefik, I am unable to find a translator where I can extract a reliable quote, however, it's worth a mention considering the breadth of the coverage in the book, and my basic understanding of German recognizes they describe Traefik in a manner which meets the criteria for reliable and independent secondary sourcing.^[4]

"Traefik (pronounced Traffic) is a reverse HTTP proxy which has been designed to work from the ground up with container orchestration tools like Kubernetes. It not only provides load balancing but also supports basic HTTP authentication and SSL termination. To find out more about Traefik, see its website at https://traefik.io"^[5]

"Traefik is a reverse proxy implemented in Go that can also function as an Ingress controller. It has a set of features and dashboards that are very developer-friendly."^[6]

I am including these references to books on Docker, which cover the subject of Traefik as well:

"Traefik is a fast, powerful, and easy-to-use reverse proxy. You run it in a container and publish the HTTP (or HTTPS) port, and configure the container to listen for events from the Docker Engine API ..."^[7]

"Traefik is a cloud-native edge router and it is open source, which is great for our specific case. It even has a nice web UI that you can use to manage and monitor your routes. Traefik can be combined with Docker in a very straightforward way, as we will see in a moment."^[8]

There are books written independently of container platforms which cover Traefik in-depth:

"Traefik is an open source reverse proxy and load balancer. Originally, these two features were handle by different components ... But quite recently, several open source projects emerged that implemented both features in software. Traefik is one of those tools, and it leverages several new technologies ..."^[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmastrpc (talk • contribs) 14:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These references clearly meet the requirements listed in WP:GNG, as explained below:

"Significant coverage": The references listed above describe what Traefik is, such that no original research is required. These mentions are more than trivial, and there is no requirement for the subject matter to be the primary topic of the source material.
"Reliability": The referenced material mentioned above are books published by reputable publishers, including Packt Publishing, O'Reilly Media, and Heinz_Heise in addition to meeting the criteria for secondary sources.
"Secondary Sources": The authors of these materials are explaining what Traefik is in their own words, and are independent of the subject. There are no less than 7 verifiable sources from different authors providing in-depth descriptions and use-cases of the subject.
"Independent of Subject": The books, publishers, and authors are not associated in any way with the subject.
"Presumption": The subject matter of Traefik does not meet the criteria of WP:PLOT, as the subject is not creative work, lyric database, statistics, or changelog.

As to the matter of WP:NSOFT:

"discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field.": I believe the references which are outlined for notability as per WP:GNG covers this requirement.
"subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews,[2] written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.": Again, the material I've referenced which meet the criteria covered in WP:GNG meet this requirement, in addition, I've included references to independent reviews below.

ThoughtWorks Technology Radar reviewed Traefik in Nov. 2018 and Apr. 2019, which included the following description:

"Traefik is an open-source reverse proxy and load balancer. If you're looking for an edge proxy that provides simple routing without all the features of NGINX and HAProxy, Traefik is a good choice. The router provides a reload-less reconfiguration, metrics, monitoring and circuit breakers that are essential when running microservices. It also integrates nicely with Let's Encrypt to provide SSL termination as well as infrastructure components such as Kubernetes, Docker Swarm or Amazon ECS to automatically pick up new services or instances to include in its load balancing." ^[10]

There have also been verified reviews published on g2crowd^[11], most of which have no connection to the subject. There are references to notability in these reviews, such as:

"It's a great piece of software, written in Golang and open source. Let me explain what it makes so unique compared to Nginx/Apache/Haproxy. traefik provides different way for configuration. You can feed it with YAML, JSON or TOML. There is no custom format, like in Nginx."^[12]

In summary, there are several books that have been published, on a variety of different topics, which include Traefik in a notable capacity. I believe the subject unequivocally meets the criteria set forth in both WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT and I'm open to hearing why the sources I've included above would not.

— Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

*Keep There is definitely notability in this article, and there is definitely significant coverage of it. There is significant context in the article and it passes both WP:GNG - the sources meeting reliability guidelines, and WP:NSOFT - with many reviews for the software. RedRiver660 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- @RedRiver660: What "many reviews" are you referring to? The only reviews linked are from g2.com and are all WP:USERG and most definitely not acceptable for sourcing, let alone GNG. And which sources specifically pass the GNG requirements? None have any significant encyclopedic content about the software, it's all brief descriptions, tutorials and manuals. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Hellknowz: I was talking about the reviews on https://stackshare.io/traefik. As for the notability, while some sources have errors, the books in google books are trustable enough to prove notability. RedRiver660 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - These are user reviews and not acceptable for GNG. Books being "trustable" is only one requirement for GNG. All the books linked above are tutorials/manuals and not encyclopedic content. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The guidelines in NSOFT require “reliable” reviews, there is no exclusion of user reviews from what I can tell. Many of the reviews found in g2crowd, thoughtworks, and stackshare can be considered reliable and verifiable. If you have an issue with NSOFT, perhaps take it up on their talk page? As far as the books establishing notability, I expressed how each one of those sources met the criteria set forth in GNG, and I don’t see anywhere in GNG where the content must be considered “encyclopedic”. Again, if you have an issue with GNG and it’s criteria, you should take it to the talk page. — Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        User reviews are never reliable or acceptable; see specifically WP:USERG. Similarly, WP:NOTMANUAL is a core policy and there isn't any significant content in those sources besides tutorial/manual material that is not suitable for Wikipedia. You are free to interpret GNG how you want, but please refrain from telling me to "perhaps take it up on their talk page". — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:USERG also mentions review aggregators as potentially being reliable, both G2 Crowd and Stackshare fall into those categories. Also, Thoughtworks Technology Radar is an independent, non-user aggregated review source that you've ignored. While the aggregation of those reviews may not be accepted for inclusion in the article (as WP:USERG points out), authenticity and reliability can be confirmed for purposes of meeting the criteria of notability. I don't understand how WP:NOTMANUAL bears any relevance to the requirements for notability set forth in WP:GNG, can you please elaborate? My understanding is that WP:NOTMANUAL is a guideline on how to properly write an article for an encyclopedia, and what to avoid. If there is an issue with how the article is written, that isn't a reason for AfD, but rather clean up. Also, I'll ask this again since I believe you're deflecting, for the purposes of establishing notability, where is the requirement that the content be "encyclopedic" mentioned in WP:GNG? Apologies for subtly suggesting you take these issues elsewhere, I am frustrated from what appears to be a lack of objectivity and the inclusion of what I consider arbritrary requirements. — Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry you're frustrated. The draft should not have been accepted by the editor above (they are not a reviewer, nor do they pass the requirements to be a reviewer (even though it's not a requirement to be one to accept drafts)). The draft would most likely have been declined on GNG grounds so that it would never get to the point of AfD with an explanation and an option to review and ask questions at a help desk.
        
        I'm sorry if I'm dismissive, but I cannot adequately explain myself briefly. GNG exists to establish the bare minimum of source coverage so that there is enough content to write an article. The books that are tutorials/manuals do not provide such content. Such content would violate WP:NOT, which is a policy above GNG. Why does it have to be encyclopedic? Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia as per WP:PILLARS, which is above everything else. We do not collect information simply because it exists. A source survey on a topic should show that there is significant content that we can use to write an encyclopedic article. But, as I said, this is my interpretation and I only responded to points that I consider incorrect and other editors can express their thoughts. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The content in the books I've referenced establish those bare minimums, by explaining what Traefik is, and in some of them why it differs from existing products which have their own respective wiki pages. Please see the quotes I've included in the arguments I made for keep above, there are seven of them. The article which was created is not a tutorial or manual, but a reference to the software described in the cited references - which is exactly what makes Traefik notable and why the page should exist. Software is a tool, the vast majority of publications on a piece of software is going to be a manual or guidebook of some sort. GNG does not exclude printed manuals or instruction books from the purposes of establishing notability, and in fact, NSOFT suggests that the presence of published books on the subject is required to establish notability. — Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It's entirely unclear to me how this requirement in NSOFT – "subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews,[2] written by independent authors and published by independent publishers." can be met if those materials violate WP:NOT, and by extension, are not qualified for WP:GNG. Can you elaborate exactly on how that would work? This seems like a contradiction. — Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article inappropriately "accepted" through AfC by a newbie posing as a reviewer. The sources provided above are passing mentions, how-to guides or unreliable. Fails NSOFT and GNG. Note that per his userpage, Kcmastrpc was paid to write this article. WP:PAYTALK is relevant here. Spicy (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy: Can you elaborate on how the article is promotional? I feel like this argument is getting a little contradictory. Honestly, this whole discussion is starting to make me seriously confused. RedRiver660 (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this whole discussion is starting to make me seriously confused. Well, that's why it's a bad idea for newbies to review AfCs. Promotional aspects of the article include ad copy-like phrases such as "designed to serve as a dynamic software load balancer capable of running on multiple orchestrators including Kubernetes and cloud platforms while handling over 20k requests per second", "providing scalability, high-availability, and additional security features combined with support agreements for enterprise customers", an exhaustive list of features which is relevant to potential customers but not to encyclopedia readers, stating that it has been used or mentioned in various publications rather than summarizing the contents of those publications as an encyclopedia is supposed to do, and use of the dreadful word "solution" (WP:SOLUTIONS). As well as the fact that it was created by a paid editor for the express purpose of advertising the software. Spicy (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of notability, it's still unclear to me how the coverage in multiple published books can be considered as trivial, as they describe the subject matter such that it requires no original research, and as already stated the publishers and authors have no connection to the subject. It's still unclear to me how those references do not meet the criteria set forth in GNG. I suppose it doesn't have to be clear to me, there just needs to be consensus in that regard and I accept that. With regards to PROMO, it sounds like you have some issues with the quality of the article, as such, it can be cleaned up. — Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If all of the promotional and unencyclopedic content were removed, there would be nothing left. I am a volunteer and I would rather not argue with someone who is being paid for their posts, so I won't be responding to your comments any further. Spicy (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy and Kcmastrpc: I must admit, the article is slowly sounding more and more promotional. I am having second thoughts about this... RedRiver660 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to continue arguing, @Spicy:, I've cleaned up the article and if you still believe the article is promotional and the sources don't meet GNG, there is nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise. I appreciate your time, nevertheless. — Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After rereading the article, I am leaning towards delete. This article is becoming more promotional every week. When I accepted this article, it was moderate in terms of promotion. Now, it’s ridiculous how promotional it’s become. User:Spicy raises a good point. It was a mistake to accept this article. RedRiver660 (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were made in an effort to pull in the published sources. I just made several edits removing the language which was considered promotional. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know that I originally said keep, but this article is getting worse and worse in terms of promotion. I think that it was a definite mistake accepting this at AfC. I’m going to be honest and take the blame for even accepting it in the first place. RedRiver660 (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC) ([reply]
- Diff between what was accepted and current. @RedRiver660: The edits I made were in earnest to include the publications which met the criteria set forth in GNG. I recognize that promoting the sources was not the correct course of action. I've removed what has been considered promotional, even content that was originally accepted, and updated the feature summary to include what makes Traefik notable by using the material contained in the sources cited above. — Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spicy. And yes I have reviewed the most recent version of the article. I would also suggest that RedRiver take a step back from AFC reviewing for a bit until the user has more experience. Recognizing ones mistakes is good, but that does not change the fact that all this back and forth never needed to happen in the first place. ZettaComposer (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: should never have been accepted at afc in the first place. I echo ZettaComposer's advice, and note that RedRiver has already been warned for this very thing on their user page by an admin, albeit the day after this was so unfortunately accepted. ——Serial^# 08:30, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relish Publications

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

I tried to find suitable links to build up this article. But, it fails WP:NCORP and the current article is purely written in a promotional format (WP:PROMO). Hatchens (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 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. czar 06:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Anderson (engineer)

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

Non-notable engineer. It seems that she is interviewed by the press often, discussing SpaceX launches, etc, but could not find many RS discussing her directly. Natg 19 (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to you to decide what is relevant but if Insprucker is deserving then so is Anderson. I would say number 3 engineer from Elon at SpaceX is relevant. (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article in its current state - citing her Linkedin and Spotify accounts doesn't establish notability. More reliable sources discussing her are needed. Also, her profile pic is from her personal twitter, so it's unlikely to be a free image. --Prosperosity (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable engineer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking in reliable sourcing. Also, the sourcing on the Insprucker article isn't rock solid, either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:04, 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 Battle of Picacho Pass. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Barrett (Civil War)

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

Non-notable soldier. 1st Lieutenant is a long ways from passing WP:NSOLDIER. All the coverage I'm finding is passing references stating that he commanded a 13-man detachment at the Battle of Picacho Pass and that he was killed in the fighting. Since the coverage is limited to that, I don't see how the subject passes GNG. Theoretically, this figure could be redirected to Battle of Picacho Pass except this title would not make a good redirect, as (Civil War) is ambiguous. Deletion is probably best then. Hog Farm (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. We don't allot an article to just any lieutenant killed in the Civil War. Even colonels aren't guaranteed that. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of Picacho Pass since he was the Union commander of the only Civil War battle in Arizona and is mentioned there. I don't see the problem with the disambiguator - something is needed since there are several James Barretts. MB 05:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @MB: - The issue is that (Civil War) is ambiguous. It's unclear if it's referring to a James Barrett who fought in the American Civil War, English Civil War, Spanish Civil War, etc. If this closes in redirection, I'd recommend that the closing admin move the page to James Barrett (American Civil War) before redirecting. Hog Farm (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's really not necessary since there are no other James Barretts that fought in other civil wars. The consensus certainly seems like there is not enough notability to keep the article, but there is a clear and obvious target for a redirect and he should be listed at James Barrett (disambiguation). Per WP:NCPDAB, the disambiguator should be a single noun if possible. I would suggest James Barrett (soldier) but that could be too confusing with James Barrett (colonel), so perhaps James Barrett (calvalry officer) if you really don't like the existing title. MB 00:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely non-notable. Mztourist (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Can be mentioned elsewhere if important. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of Picacho Pass - Changing !vote from ~~Keep~~ - After a Google search, I found sources and expanded the article based on references found. According to Find A Grave, Barrett was a 2nd lieutenant. Fort Barrett, a Civil War fort, was named after him. Also, the Arizona Pioneer Historical Society and the Southern Pacific Railroad Co. erected a 12-foot memorial and gravestone in 1928 at the site of his death. The stone and bronze grave marker were later moved to Picacho Peak State Park in Arizona and placed along the Civil War Trail. Based on ample coverage of the subject, plus the memorial and the Civil War Fort named after him, ~~the subject clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO.~~ -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Grave isn't an RS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The added details are about the battle, not this chap. He doesn't meet the requirements of GNG, ie significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of Picacho Pass, non notable outside of his capacity commanding troops at the battle. Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or [[WP:NPERSON]; according to GBooks he was the first Californian to "be killed in action against the Rebels" and there are some passing mentions here and here, but nothing is in depth. WP:NSOLDIER #4 requires they "played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign;" but he fails to meet that as the battle wasn't particularly major and anything that merits mentioning about him can be said in the battle's article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. User:AuthorAuthor (User talk:AuthorAuthor) 13:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Battle of Picacho Pass per MB & Eddie891. Spleodrach (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, the soldier was as ordinary as all the other soldiers who fought in the battle as him, which makes him fail WP:MILL. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 20:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of Picacho Pass per the arguments above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:28, 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. Whilst the nominator may have been blocked, there is nevertheless a consensus for deletion. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Basham

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat.--User19004 (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unelected politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Former leader of a small extra-parliamentary party. LefcentrerightDiscuss 23:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strictly speaking, the question of whether the party has ever held a seat in the legislature is not in and of itself controlling on whether the leader qualifies for an article or not — some minor or fringe parties have held one or two legislative seats in their day without making all of their leaders notable, and some minor party leaders get enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG regardless of whether they technically passed or failed WP:NPOL on the letter of the law. But this article is not well-sourced enough to make Basham one of the latter. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hard to find much looking at what's currently in Google ... but digging back into old newspapers from 2006 to 2008, there's significant GNG coverage in ProQuest. In particular the November 20, Winnipeg Free Press article that's already referenced looks detailed. And an April 23, 2007 piece in the Free Press, and a further one on May 19, 2007. There's also pieces from the Winnipeg Sun and the Brandon Sun in 2008. Nfitz (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry and has done little but AFD articles since they created their account - all of which that I've carefully checked seem to be notable. Nfitz (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable party leader of a minor third party. Fails WP:NPOL. KidAd (talk) 06:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems to be consensus that this is "the canonical exception" to 1E. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Brennan

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

Tagged for notability for two years, and fails WP:BIO1E. This article relies on primary sources: there is very little significant coverage of the person (as opposed to his testimony) in secondary sources. St Anselm (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This article is mentioned directly in policy as an example that is an exception to WP:1E. I think this is a WP:Pointy AFD because the article was used in a discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin. That said, WP:1E states:

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.

Casprings (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't pointy - the article was tagged for notability for two years. In any case, I don't see a need to withdraw the nomination. Clearly, if this article gets deleted, it will need to be removed as an example from WP:1E. St Anselm (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I am extremely dubious whether he was independently notable. The whole article is about the murder of JFK and his role as a witness to it. His assassination was one of the most significant of the 20th century: I can only think of that of the Archduke Rudolf in 1914, which triggered WWI as more so. It might be better merged into an article on the assassination or on the Warren Commission that investigated it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Archduke Ferdinand. But the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand article does name Count Franz von Harrach as an eyewitness (from whom we know the Archduke's last words), but he doesn't have an article (though, as a count, we might expect him to be independently notable). St Anselm (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the large number (and popularity) of the conspiracy theories associated with this assassination (and how seriously Brennan undermines those theories IMHO), it seems reasonable to go into detail on his life. (Which would be too cumbersome to include in another article.) A lot of the details of his life are relevant to the assassination (including the eyesight issue). He's been called the "star" witness of the Warren Commission. Ergo, it's reasonable to keep given the significance of this event.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added several sources that aren't primary, all of the newspaper stories contain significant coverage of Brennan, the book mentions are shorter. —valereee (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the GNG. Is literally the canonical exception to 1E. Hobit (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Christian Heritage Party of Canada. czar 02:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Vanwoudenberg

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat.--User19004 (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a leader of a minor party that does not have enough importance to make the head default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Christian Heritage Party of Canada, not independently notable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a good solution. As far as I can tell his party is a very minor one that I never won a major election. I might have voted to delete, but think merger is a better answer.
Merge. I agree with the idea of a merger. LefcentrerightDiscuss 23:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Looking through google books there might be enough to keep this article. He was the founder of a national party that has been running for nearly 40 years, albeit never winning anything substanital. With that being said, I'm not sure how much more you could write that what there already is. So its probably better to just merge. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge. To be fair, leaders of national political parties aren't automatically non-notable just because their party wasn't successful in elections — they can still be kept if they have enough sources to write a substantive article that clearly passes WP:GNG. But that's not in evidence here, so he does indeed fall below the bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 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 Keep. Consensus is that the subject passes GNG. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Tyrrell

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

Tyrrell's article does not seem to show any notability. It provides biographical information which is quite routine and he has not had any notable progress as leader of the Quebec Green Party.--User19004 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, Leaders of registered political parties at the national level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success. Worth adding that this party holds 0 seats and tends to get 0-5% of the vote in provincial elections. The party is a provincial, not national, party. Probably doesn't qualify under WP:POLOUTCOMES. If he wasn't a leader he'd certainly fail per Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted. But may still meet WP:GNG - haven't checked. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The party's degree of electoral success or failure is not in and of itself the controlling factor on whether they get an article or not — obviously a leader is guaranteed an article if he actually sits in the legislature as an MNA, but a leader without a seat is still notable enough for an article if he clears GNG on his sourceability, and the sources here do get him over that bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete leaders of minor provincial parties are not inherently notable. The rule mentioned above applies on a national not a sub-national level. There is no sign of notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial party leaders most certainly are still kept if they're shown to clear GNG on their volume and depth and range of sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. He isn't inherently notable but there are enough sources that meet the standards at GNG to satisfy notability.--User:Namiba 17:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in agreement by the above comment by Namiba. Helper201 (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Complete fail of WP:BEFORE. And what is User:Johnpacklambert thinking? I see so many of his delete's that have no thought or logic to them. But good grief, he's the leader of the Green Party of Quebec for seven years, and a candidate for the Green Party of Canada leadership, which has seats in Parliament; how can the 2020 Green Party of Canada leadership election be notable but the candidates aren't? And then there's several good references. At some point we have to consider this editors lack of competency on AFD discussions. Nfitz (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Brake (journalist)

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

I am not necessarily saying that Justin Brake doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards of notability, however most of his notability is based on one event therefore I believe the same should be debated. Therefore I am making a procedural nomination.--User19004 (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ideally this info would be at an article listed under the trial name (or even Trial of Justin Brake), but part of the reason for notability is due to there being two simultaneous trials, making that a little hard. Also, having a brief look at articles in the media, they all talk about the cases in terms of Justin Brake, and don't even name the trials formally most of the time. The titles are written in such a way that the readers should be familiar with Brake (and not just the trial), which is evidence that "Justin Brake" is the best location for this info at the moment. --Prosperosity (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are literally dozens of references, mostly significant, in the article There's no doubt the topic is notable. Perhaps the name of the article should be different, but nothing immediately jumps to mind, and that's a different subject. Nfitz (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8539551/

[2] ttps://www.g2.com/products/traefik/reviews

[3] ttps://www.google.com/books/edition/Apache_Mesos_Cookbook/MpZGDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Traefik%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA99&printsec=frontcover

[4] ttps://www.google.com/books/edition/c_t_Docker_Co_2020/NtfVDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=traefik&pg=PA68&printsec=frontcover

[5] ttps://www.google.com/books/edition/Kubernetes_for_Serverless_Applications/ptRJDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Traefik%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA259&printsec=frontcover

[6] ttps://www.google.com/books/edition/Kubernetes_Up_and_Running/V5qzDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Traefik%22

[7] ttps://www.google.com/books/edition/Docker_on_Windows/ogyLDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Traefik%22

[8] ttps://www.google.com/books/edition/Learn_Docker_Fundamentals_of_Docker_19_x/CeTWDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Traefik

[9] ttps://www.google.com/books/edition/Hands_On_Reactive_Programming_with_Pytho/1_50DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=traefik+lets+encrypt&pg=PA302&printsec=frontcover

[10] ttps://www.thoughtworks.com/radar/tools/traefik

[11] ttps://www.g2.com/products/traefik/reviews

[12] ttps://www.g2.com/products/traefik/reviews/traefik-review-4203633

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]