Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 June	12 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pulippunam CSI Church

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

This church does not appear to meet WP:GNG. My search on Google and Google Books does not turn up any independent coverage of the building or congregation. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any coverage of this church to establish notability. There is only one reference in the article, but I am unable to find any mention of the church in that source. -- Whpq (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. --Xannir (talk) 13:08, 18 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian E. Elder

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

I am the subject of the article and I am a private non-notable person Xianelda (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not notable enough to have an article over the subjects protests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability appears borderline and I can’t see any need to retain this against the subject’s wishes. Mccapra (talk) 04:26, 18 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tourwrist

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

Fails WP:NWEB. Official website is dead link, no evidence company still exists. Sources appear to be PR in nature and article is promotional in nature. Rogermx (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But, but: "TourWrist also owns and operates the world’s largest panoramic photography forum Panoguide.com". Except that it seems not to. Good nomination; delete. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete blatant advert article about a non-notable company. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What we have here is a press release, not an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In no way notable, even if it were still in existence. Wikipedia is not for advertising. --Jack Frost (talk) 00:19, 19 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Malec

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

There are two claims of notability here, one is a company he owns and the other is for a reality television appearance.

The bulk of the article is a near complete cut-and paste from Birdman Bats, a company that he's involved with. My WP:BEFORE search turns up This source (and to a lesser extent this one) which provide inadequate justification for a standalone article.

The next is for appearing on Labor of Love, for which the sources appear to weak.

I would suggest a redirect to Birdman Bats as an option in lieu of deletion. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just noting that there's a COI discussion going on here. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just tagged this for UPE following the COIN discussion. The user has been asked to disclose.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note Article creator has been blocked for unambiguous violations of the Terms of Use. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Associated article, Birdman Bats, has been deleted following discussion at WP:COI. This nominated page also reeks of paid editing. Most sources on the page do not even mention the subject. Subject otherwise fails WP:GNG. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is some coverage, for the Labor of Love tv show and Birdman bats. But it is not in terrific depth, and the article is a strong promotional effort that would require serious rewrite. I'm not sure we would find enough good sourcing for a proper article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:50, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Snowden-McCray

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

All coverage is interviews in the context of entities she has been involved with, not about her. I struggled to find significant, independent coverage of her in an outside search. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All references are either WP:MILL or don't come close to WP:SIGCOV. Needs a lot more primary sources on her to pass WP:GNG Jackreed86 (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer and journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 18 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Sex Wars

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

Non notable film with no know actors. Only review is from a site called "bullz-eye" Donaldd23 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reviews on the level that would show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant reviews (only blog reviews, including bullz-eye, and user reviews from what I found) and no significant coverage about the making of the film or its impact. Does not meet WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 11:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't need a wikipedia article for every movie ever made. --Xannir (talk) 13:09, 18 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. This is partially due to the nominator being a sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

François Gourd

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected.--User19004 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hard to imagine that the founder of the current Rhinoceros Party and Les Foufounes Électriques wouldn't be notable. There's literally decades of media coverage of this person - and this was noted in the previous AFD. Why are neither User:User19004 nor User:Johnpacklambert discussing the unanimous keep in the previous AFD? Nfitz (talk)
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) 09:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - [1], [2], [3] are some of the coverage about this person. I would venture to say that WP:NPOL is the wrong measuring stick to use for notability given that the Rhino party was a satirical one. In any case, WP:GNG is met. -- Whpq (talk) 23:27, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marc-Boris St-Maurice

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected.--User19004 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Keep May not meet WP:POLITICIAN, but simple google search shows he meets WP:GNG. I've added some sources to the article to prove as much. To quote WP:POLOUTCOMES "Leaders of registered political parties at the national level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success". I think this is one of those times. Samsmachado (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references support notability. Meets GNG. Nfitz (talk) 04:07, 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) 09:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's true that he doesn't strictly get over NPOL for his role as leader of a fringe political party per se — but he certainly does get over GNG for his larger role as a marijuana legalization activist. Context is your friend. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG for marijuana stuff. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:02, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Urbina

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

Although there are refs from reliable sources, it seems to be an WP:1E case with no other notability guidelines met (no more mentions in reliable sources rather than about him using debris to create furniture). Moreover, the article reads very promotional. Less Unless (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note for admin I think this could be speedy deleted as it is all copyvio. The history contains a version with two refs, one of which is the subject's web site.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio cleaned up, revdel requested. There are three independent sources now.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, search finds inadequate sourcing for GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable furniture designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 23:05, 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) 21:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Serge Brisson

(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) 20:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Keep That he doesn't meet POLITICIAN has no relevance given the previous AFD found numerous sources. Why User:User19004 is another AFD necessary, given the sources listed in the previous one? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 7. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15? Nfitz (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Nfitz, previous AFD found to be notable and notability cannot be lost. Also User19004 is a sock, so not sure if the re-nom for AFD is really valid. Samsmachado (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - yes as it's created by a sock for a blocked user, it's eligible for speedy close under criteria 4 and probably 2 as well. Nfitz (talk) 04:57, 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) b uidhe 17:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chukwu octuplets

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

Article is trivial. Per WP:BLP1E, "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." User:Namiba 16:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 16:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trvia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There was understandably a lot of coverage when this ocurred (^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]), but there's rather sustained coverage 2009, 2008, "World's first octuplets celebrate 3rd birthday". Jet. 101: 23–24. January 2002., [4] and they are referenced just about every time octuplets are born [5] [6][7]. It's borderline, but I think there's enough to indicate a significance that isn't just passing or trivia. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lyman, Rick (1998-12-31). "Mother of the Octuplets Goes Home to Recover". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-06-05.
^ "CNN - Octuplets get names; dad gets unwanted publicity - December 23, 1998". web.archive.org. 2016-03-30. Retrieved 2020-06-05.
^ "Help Pours In for Parents of Octuplets". Los Angeles Times. 1998-12-23. Retrieved 2020-06-05.
^ NYTimes articles

Keep - This special set is so rare, and therefore the amount of sources used in the article are very large, I would say the article could be expanded, but it shouldn't be deleted as it has multiple reliable sources. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 22:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The birth of octuplets who are all still alive and thriving (except for one) ten years later is too exceptional an event, and very well documented. But if we can find reliable updates on the octuplets' lives as teenagers and adults, that would be great. Methychroma (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is discussion of the Chukwu octuplets in Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Human Sexuality, McGraw-Hill (2000), pages 123-130. I think that this along with the considerable contemporary news coverage demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:39, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 17:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Moen

(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) 20:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry as a previously blocked editor, so this AFD is eligible for speedy close under criteria 4 and probably 2 as well. Nfitz (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination itself was bogus. --Xannir (talk) 13:10, 18 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) 21:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Theatre (Sacramento, California)

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

Might be notable, but the entire article is copied from [8]. Fuddle (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G12 as unambiguous copyright infringement. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Rather than rush to delete a copy vio, since Wiki is meant to be a collaborative effort, why not start the article over based on the information provided? I blanked the text, found a different source so it now has at least one reference. I found a site that gives you a brief history of the theater. I challenge you to improve the article and not pursue deletion. Postcard Cathy (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article's problems as described above are surmountable since deletion is not cleanup.Djflem (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if, as the article states, the theater is a national historic landmark then this would be a slam "keep" as meeting WP:NGEO but it doesn't appear in the wikiarticle List of National Historic Landmarks in California, nor appears on the National Park Service "List of NHLs by State", nevertheless, it is on the Sacremento Register of Historic & Cultural Resources (see here). Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I was the one that put in the landmark designation but as I usually don’t edit articles about buildings, I didn’t know about the articles you mentioned. Can you please make any and all edits to other articles you think are important? Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have opened discussion Talk:Tower Theatre (Sacramento, California)#Landmark status? to clarify and tagged as dubious.Djflem (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG, and it seeps the copyright problems have been addressed. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be very hard for a Streamline Moderne building not to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly notable thanks to the improvements by Postcard Cathy and Djflem. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thanks everyone for contributing to improving this article! I created it because I believe it is significant and meets GNG, I just did not have the time to produce original content. — MHansen (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:MHansen -- does your casual comment mean there are other copyright violations in your editing history? Wikipedia is compelled to take that seriously. You should too. Have a look at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If you didn't have time to "produce original content", please don't create time-consuming messes for others to solve. If you've done this before, clean up after yourself. In good faith and good humor --Lockley (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: It is significant historically and clearly notable. I have seen many less significant theatres having their own Wikipedia article. So this one shall be kept. It just needs some fixing. And as per the guidelines by wikipedia that the nominator should read before nominating any article, articles that can be fixed shall be kept. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's fairly clear consensus to keep now that the copyvio has been removed, but could the closing admin please RD1 up to 960940992, which is the revision before the infringing text was removed? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:51, 18 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dotmobile

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

no clear evidence of notability-- not yet even in operation, DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if Data On Tap Inc. isn't notable enough for it's own article, it's highly doubtful that a division of it is and nothing in the sourcing points to that being the case. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and non-existent, however those two ideas fit together. Either one would be enough. --Lockley (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An 11th-edit article creation by new user DTInc2020, doing little but describing a start-up's regulatory approvals. Searches find announcement-based coverage but not the WP:RS coverage needed for WP:NCORP, and there is no article on the parent company which could provide a redirect target. AllyD (talk) 10:16, 18 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) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Shankar

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

Fails WP:GNGACTOR. Period! Hatchens (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor. Java Hurricane 07:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR with prominent significant roles in multiple notable nationally released feature films such as Marubhoomiyile Aana, Thobama, Allu Ramendran, Mariyam Vannu Vilakkoothi and Mohan Kumar Fans as confirmed by reliable sources some of which are already in the article. Hopefully this nomination and similar are not due to US centric bias as I can't imagine a US actor with this number of prominent roles being nominated, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He plays the lead role in Kochaal and the second male lead in Allu Ramendran.^[1]^[2] TamilMirchi (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important upcoming actor. One of the leads in Allu Ramendran and Marubhoomiyile Aana. Notable roles in other movies as well, as detailed above. Jupitus Smart 17:54, 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 draftify. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 17:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Team Dynamics

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

Very questionably notable neologism. Beyond that, the page is riddled with WP:TONE, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and close paraphrasing issues that would require WP:TNT to fix. I attempted to CSD it for G12, but the CSD was removed by an ip editor.

Further the multiple WP:SPA accounts editing this page makes WP:COATRACK and WP:UPE concerns very probable per WP:QUACK. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Thank you for explaining in detail the issues you see in the article, as well as aspiring to keep the content quality up to WP standards. As one of the article's main editors and indeed as a new editor, I recognize the issue of WP:SPA and one instance of WP:NOR in the last section.

In my opinion, it is justified to have concerns about neologism, WP:COATRACK, and WP:NPOV. A review of the article by an expert of the field would bring clarity/justification to the issues. I contest that these are a case of WP:QUACK for simply deleting the article. Furthermore, I contest that the article has major issues on WP:TONE although of course there is some room for improvement.

I contest the claim of WP:UPE because it is not the case. I also objected to CSD for G12 based on points made in the article's talk page. To summarize it, the source appearing with a high match on Earwig is already cited extensively, while another source had a high match because it also used the previous source. Therefore I genuinely do not understand if there is a real problem here. If, despite these concerns, there are still copyright problems, please WP:AGFC and explain what it is.

As you can see, we are new editors and we have spent weeks on this article. While I can only guess what kind of new editors you deal with on a daily basis, please consider WP:AGF over WP:QUACK and thank you for offering to discuss the issues rather than rushing to deletion. All points considered, I strongly protest to a need for deletion or WP:TNT. My vote would be to draftify the article and resubmit it into the AfC process.

Speaking of AfC, originally I had moved the draft to the mainspace myself after reaching the understanding that it is fine for an autoconfirmed user to do so, based on what I read on pages about AfC and user permissions. If this understanding is wrong, please also WP:AGF and be assured that we will let the article sit as draft in the AfC process for as long as it needs and undergo further improvements, based on constructive feedback, until senior reviewers find it fit for publishing. --Cosmonought (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have now made an edit to resolve what I believe was the case of WP:OR in the article, by finding sources to revise and justify the content in the last section of the article. --Cosmonought (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Virtual team dynamics (the lowercase version) seems to be a possibly notable topic, based on a perusal of GBooks. The article does have problems, but if there is an editor willing to learn and get this page conformant to WP policies and practices, then draftify is a reasonable alternative that will allow others to check the work. It there are paid editing and COI issues, AfC is also a good venue to vet such content by independent editors. Hence, draftify. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:21, 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 Move to draft. Clear consensus this needs proper sourcing Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Souguellis

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

Has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable, not self-published sources, lacks WP:MUSICBIO CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources currently in the article indicate that she has gotten some minor notice in the Christian music media, but via Google Translate these are revealed to be either brief promotional announcements or coverage of larger events in which she was merely listed as present. Little else can be found in either Portuguese or English. Not enough significant and reliable media coverage to establish notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please keep the article, it can be great. The article is about a well-known singer from Brazil, with thousands of followers on social networks and millions of views on her YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5ixXXGYdPE this video, for example, contains more than 75 million views). The article is good and already contains great references, but it can be improved and new references can be added. --213.57.143.21 (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - If it "can" be great but is not great, then it should go in the draft space until someone can fix it up. --Xannir (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft move to draftspace for improvement as there are indications she could become notable in due time, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources do not show that she is notable now. If she ever becames notable the article can be REFUNDed. b uidhe 01:26, 19 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) 06:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgeland, California

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

This one was added from Dunn's book of place names, and does not appear on any topo map until it was copied in from GNIS. Other sources, however, say that "Dodgeland" was actually the Butte County office of the Dodge Land Company, whose business was to lease out land for growing rice. Not having Dunn's book at hand, I cannot see what he said, but the Butte County histories have numerous mentions of the company and none at all of a town by this name. The coordinates they give roughly coincide with those from this list of weather stations, but again it describes a building, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This apparently was a post office at one time [9] but as we've seen before, it doesn't guarantee that there was once a community here. More likely the site of Dodge Land Company offices/property. Glendoremus (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable locality. --Lockley (talk) 11:27, 18 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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher E. Mason

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

Subject fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Wikipedia's guidance about notability says nothing about number of publications, citations, or h-index, so any belief about those is purely subjective. Most of the citations here are what the subject co-wrote so they do nothing for notability. None of the independent sources are about the subject. The subject is not in a named chair. This article was created because Draft:Christopher E. Mason has been declined at AfC. UPE is definitely a possibility. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPROF C1 for numerous highly cited papers. Citations are relative to field, but this is a strong record even for a fairly high-citation field. Agree that the article needs a lot of cleanup. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Russ Woodroofe: That's incorrect: AfD is not for cleanup. The issue is that we don't know what "highly cited" means. You, who claim to be an associate professor, say "this is a strong record" but what reliable source can you provide to prove it is? Chris Troutman (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm well aware that Afd is not cleanup, but the promotional tone and other details requiring cleanup seem to be the reason for the nomination, and I'm actually sympathetic to that. As Eddie891 says in more detail below, this citation record compares favorably to blps that we have kept in the past. 2800+ citations on the top-cited paper indicates quite a bit of impact. I'm uncertain as to why you'd take the aggressive tone. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The reason for the nomination is in part because I declined the draft and was watching this space just in case such an end-run around AfC was made. The nomination is because the subject isn't notable, which is the only reason to nominate for deletion. My frustration with your assertions is that some editors make claims about "highly cited" but we, as a community, have never created objective standards regarding h-index, etc. I think your argument is essentially ILIKEIT. At least Eddie891 is making a statistical claim. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Google scholar profile suggests a pass of WP:NPROF#C1 (top cited paper 2807 cites, ~4 with over 1000, ~9 over 500, and at least 20 over 200) which is 'highly cited' based upon consensus established in many past AfD's. I can understand (and perhaps support) efforts to clarify these guidelines (as to what exactly 'highly cited is'), but the standing consensus is that these numbers would meet NPROF. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've made up a list of some past AfD's that have been kept as 'highly cited' with quotes for easier checking at User:Eddie891/highly cited? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Any argument using a version of OUTCOMES is circular reasoning. Even if AfDs went the wrong way 200 times in the past does not mean we have to repeat that mistake for consistency's sake. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd completely agree that we don't really have much besides circular reasoning. We seem to have slipped into thresholds that haven't necessarily been backed up. All I found outside of Wikipedia is that he is listed as a "Highly Cited Researcher" which based upon their methodology puts him in the top 1% of scholars in their field, which indicates that he's highly cited to me. This ranking should be taken with a grain of salt because it doesn't seem to have much recognition outside of the company, but it's also made by Clarivate, a seemingly reliable statistics company. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF based on the citation record of his research. See his Google Scholar profile to confirm. TJMSmith (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the first criterion of WP:NPROF, with sympathy to the nom's point of view. I admit the first criterion of NPROF is problematic. Our threshold is "author of highly cited academic work", but citation indices only give us numbers of citations. "Highly cited" differs from field to field, and so we rely upon past AfDs (circular reasoning, as nom points out above), calls to authority (I work in or am familiar with [insert field] so I know what highly cited looks like), and arbitrary rules of thumb to decide where the line is. I'll apply my circular logic and arbitrary rule of thumb here to say: we usually seem to keep pages for profs in biomedicine that have been the senior author on several papers with over 100 citations. According to SCOPUS, the most cited work with the subject as senior author are [10] (456 citations), [11] (172 citations, but it's a review so my opinion is it doesn't really count), [12] (129 citations), [13] (125 citations), [14] (125 citations; another review), and [15] (112 citations). So I would call that a narrow pass through NPROF. If we want to discuss tweaking NPROF to hammer down some more usable boundaries, I'm all for that (to the nom's point above, I've never seen a reliable source say "several papers with 100 citations is quite highly cited in biomedicine" and I'm not sure how we've assumed this habit). Based on the way that draft looked, this could very well be a case of WP:BOGO. But besides cleaning up the page to make it less awful, I'm not sure what we should really do about that... Ajpolino (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:34, 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. Academic Challenger (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Santrex

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

This article about a defunct webhost is currently sourced exclusively to what appears to be a blog. There has been some recent edit warring, which introduced a bunch of other unreliable and primary sources; in investigating the edit war, I spent some time searching for independent, reliable secondary sources that would satisfy NCORP, but found nothing but primary sources, affiliated sources and UGC. Suggest deletion as best solution. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Agree and did the same but no reliable information in depth available. Elena Marcus D (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find any reliable sources. Antila ✉ 05:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass through WP:CORP and references consists of interviews and supposed sponsored mentions that are not WP:RS ~ Amkgp 💬 14:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The blog posts discuss some malign uses to which this hosting service was put, but WP:NOTINHERITED may apply to that? Regarding Santrex itself, I am seeing routine listings and user reviews but not the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 10:08, 18 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 06:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Arora

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

The article falls short of notability criteria. Seems to have been written by the subject himself as a puff piece. The article is very poorly cited and the statements made often have no connection the sources cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devasuran (talk • contribs) 12:03, May 8, 2020 (UTC)

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own at this time. @Devasuran: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 18:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite what looks like copious references, they are either not significantly about the subject or not independent or mere passing mentions. No indication of passing any applicable notability standard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. References provided to attest for significance and notability are not independent. Runforlimit505 (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 12:32, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Well (church)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not more than a brief mention in the weakest of secondary sources. As far as I can tell, this institution doesn't exist anymore. There is no value to keeping this stub article, which can never be anything other than a two line description. Yes, it was a church in Philadelphia. This article does no one any service. Jontesta (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete It seems to have attracted a little notice as a example of an emergent church, but its original pastor moved on to Oregon (and other things) and the church seems to have evaporated sometime in 2015 after the move into sharing another church's space. And at this point not a single one of the original sources is accessible, and a fair number of them seem to be articles about the emergent movement in which it seems to have appeared as an example. At present the only sources are the church's archived website, and the former pastor's blog. Wikipedia:CONG (which was used as the justification for keeping on the last go-'round) failed, and at any rate the message here is that until someone writes a history of a church, it probably isn't notable. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 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 delete. Academic Challenger (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Civil War

AfDs for this article:

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

Isn't this just a WP:CONTENTFORK of the entire Star Wars series? This is entirely sourced to primary sources. And even if you can find sources, the common name literally the title and entire subject of the movies. We could also create an article for The war against the Terminator robots or we could just leave it at Terminator (series). These aren't actually separate topics. It's the same topic under a different name. Jontesta (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Random Lurker Comment IDGAF whether or not this article is kept or not, as the entire article is sourced in primary sources, and I can't be bothered to make improvements when I'm trying to establish a life in a new city, but I would like to point out that because the Clone Wars and the Galactic Civil War were two separate conflicts despite being perpetrated by the same Sith, the Content Fork argument is invalid, and should be dismissed in favor of the fact that there are nothing but primary sources. I bet you would see a lot more delete and merge !votes if you did that. Hope this helps in this and future deletion nominations. Sasuke9031 (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFICTION (primary sources, WP:PLOT) etc. as raised above. However, I am a bit surprised Star Wars universe just redirects to Star Wars. Where is our article describing the in-universe timeline, summarizing major factions and characters, and so on? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lack of secondary coverage showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of independent notability for this topic. Fails WP:NFICTION._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. As mentioned by the nom, this is basically just a summary of the plots of the movies, which already is covered on the articles on the movies. It could potentially be useful as a redirect to Star Wars, though. Rorshacma (talk) 20:37, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mode Plagal

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

Unknown band. Only sources in this article come from the band's own website. Should be deleted. Glucken123 (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable. A quick Google reveals ample independent sources like this, this, this, this, this, etc. Give me a day or two and I'll incorporate them into the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ghmyrtle sources clearly show they are known and notable, e.g. The Guardian knows about them.--Eostrix (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is the Guardian's live review enough to justify encyclopaedic notability? If not, then what other factors should we take into account? I am just asking, because it seems that articles with lack of sources can remain online indefinitely. Glucken123 (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST in particular, TL;DR, yes, simply lacking references is not a reason for deletion. There is no deadline for adding references to the article, if they are known to exist and can be added. FOARP (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Ghmyrtle's sources, and more available. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:15, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filter (magazine)

AfDs for this article:

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

PR mag. Acousmana (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 15:41, 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 redirect to Nama band. The standard for keeping as a redirect is much lower than notability. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aris Pavlis

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

Unreliable sources and a virtually unknown person with no notability. Should be deleted. Glucken123 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural Keep~~ Redirect to Nama band (see below references) - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear FOARP, may I ask you to google those names before voting in any discussions I nominated for deletion? I investigated those Greek articles for hours and carefully nominated each and one of them. The fact that it happened at the same time does not mean there is vandalism involved. Like I said, in other deletion discussions, Aris Pavlis is another example of a virtually unknown artist in Greece who somehow ended up with a Wikipedia page. Can you again, google their name and have a good look at their notability? Any sources might do. Thanks in advance. Glucken123 (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should do the research first, before nominating, and I honestly don't believe you did that based on this mass nomination of dozens of different articles in such a short time. PS and look at the references I found even with a short search - 1 2 3. At most a merge/redirect to Nama band might be justified, but since you've nominated that for deletion as well it's clear you never saw those references. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those references are not enough on their own to provide encyclopaedic notability! In this case, a short review (in fact, a tiny paragraph) from a Greek site in 2008, could not really help a Wikipedia article stand on its own. Furthermore, there are so many exaggerated claims - something like a press release. Flash.gr is an unreliable blog btw! Glucken123 (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NEWSORG, Flash.Gr appears to be a pass as it is not self-published, has an editorial team, is professionally-made etc. etc. Definitely not a blog. FOARP (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, is there international notability of this band? The answer is no. A random mention on a Greek blog does not mean the band should remain on English Wikipedia. Furthermore, the lack of available sources online - or complete articles on the band makes this case quite hard as well. Have you heard of them? Have you ever listened to their music? Glucken123 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"International notability" is not a requirement of WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Me having heard of it or not heard of it is not relevant. FOARP (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to Nama band. Known mostly as member of the Greek group Nama. Even if this band is considered notable, that doesn't make automatically all of its members notable as well. (btw the Pavlis' article is almost identical to the article on the band) ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 22:56, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nama band

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

Not much to say here, this loos like a catalogue of an unknown band. Glucken123 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are a few things here and there in Greek websites on music, but not much. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they have won a major Greek music award as confirmed in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:53, 18 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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Stamatis

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

No significance, no sources at all. Should be deleted Glucken123 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of mass nomination (20 Greek culture articles in 26 minutes). Notable author/poet. On 2 other Wikipedias. There is coverage in English on his writing in google books, one can only imagine the amount of sources available in Greek here.--Eostrix (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:28, 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 WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable prospect for a consensus to delete this article at this point. BD2412 T 22:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Penga

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreliable sources, no significance. Glucken123 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of mass nomination (20 Greek culture articles in 26 minutes). Notable award winning author, even in English in a search one sees coverage.--Eostrix (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability evidenced in previous deletion discussion. Tacyarg (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sources seem to support notability. PamD 08:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet GNG (not to mention deletion spree as per previous comments). Samsmachado (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of sources found upon a Google search, and more sources are found searching her Greek name. Someone who speaks Greek is needed to translate or use the Greek sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my arguments on the previous discussion [16]. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Late to the gig but I would fought to keep it. Inherently notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:05, 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) b uidhe 17:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antonis Fostieris

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

This person is not truly encyclopaedic and with limited reliable sources, it is quite questionable how this article remained online for so long. Therefore, I propose its deletion. Glucken123 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Part of mass nomination (20 Greek culture articles in 26 minutes). Exists on four other Wikipedias. Edits a notable journal. Searching for the name in google books shows quite a few sources.--Eostrix (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep as it's a poor nomination. Even light Googling brings about a bunch of good sources, and looking off the Google would likely bring more. This is an easy one. I don't know how a person can be "encyclopaedic," but perhaps the nominator meant "notable." DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DiamondRemley39's arguments. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article can not be accused of being unencyclopedic. The nominator appears to have concerns about the sources but that should not be a problem because that might be the minimum standard at the time the article was created. Cryforjustice (talk) 6:00,17 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep He is a well known Greek poet.ScottHastie (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kumar

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

This page doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability test for biographies, and is overwhelmingly likely to have been created by the subject of the article himself. Also note that the account of the page's original creator (along with the accounts of subsequent editors) was banned for sockpuppeting. Aijiujoe (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 16:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 16:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobiographies violate Wikipedia policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 12:29, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Pacifica Chen

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

Non-notable person, only claim of significance is placing or winning in multiple non notable pageants. Zero coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet GNG, none of the sources cited are independant from the subject nor are they from a reliable source. From my attempt at a search, such sources about the subject do not exist. Samsmachado (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG fail. Half of the references are links to her own social accounts. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously my vote is always to keep my articles. But if this will end up being deleted, please at least redirect to Miss Teen BC. I merged the most useful info on there anyway. --Wiki2008time (talk) 23:24, 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 Redirect to Miss BC. Consensus that the subject is not notable, redirecting per ATD. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Gin (Canada)

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

non notable person who won a non-notable pageant. no coverage otherwise to satisfy n criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non notable individual lacking in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one source on the page is independant of the subject and reliable, so the article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Google reveals no missing sources or anything that could help this meet GNG.Samsmachado (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject failed basic WP:GNG, therefore she is not notable for a WP entry at this time. Google search does not provide any significant information about the subject which can be used to establish its notability. Cryforjustice (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2020

Obviously my vote is always to keep my articles. But if this will end up being deleted, please at least redirect to Miss BC. I merged the most useful info on there anyway. --Wiki2008time (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss BC please, as I anticipate this being deleted but at least redirect the valid search term - her info is on that page. --Wiki2008time (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time Flies (band)

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Short-lived hardcore punk/straight edge band from Virginia. I doubt their notability. The articles on their albums are also on AfD on behalf of their non-notability. The sources in the article are poor, with the sites of their record labels, Last.fm and a site named "Band to Band" which does not look reliable to me either. But anyways, I searched for this band (with the keywords "Time Flies punk band" and "Time Flies Virginia band") but nothing reliable came up, just the usual stuff like Discogs, Facebook, the site of their record labels, Wikipedia mirrors and stuff where the words "time" and "flies" appear but not related to the band. So no RS whatsoever. Actually, there is an article on Lambgoat about the band, but it's just about them breaking up. But no album review, no interviews, nothing that would make any reliability whatsoever. I also searched for their albums but nothing came up besides retail sites, blogs, download sites and YouTube videos. It seems that this was a very underground band which have made no waves whatsoever and did not met with much success. To be frank I have never even heard of them before today, I just met them because I saw that the articles about their albums are up for deletion and I decided to look them up. But anyways I think they are not notable. This article also managed to stay here since 2006. I said this a few times I know, but I can't believe that so many non-notable bands manage to stay here for such a long time. Underground bands which have not achieved coverage in reliable media shouldn't be in Wikipedia. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My WP:BEFORE just confirmed the nom's analysis - couldn't find anything searching "Time Flies" and band member names. Good work. FOARP (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @FOARP: Thanks! GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom; fails notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:19, 19 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 Numatic International. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 17:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hepa-Flo (vacuum bags)

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

As to be expected, a minor product for a vacuum is highly unlikely to receive the coverage required for an article. I attempted to boldly redirect to the parent company Numatic International but it was contested. I am proposing to delete and redirect as it has no independent notability for a stand alone article. Praxidicae (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Numatic International or delete it's so obviously not notable that there really shouldn't have needed to be an AfD for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by adamant1 (talk • contribs)
Redirect - Not a whiff of notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:57, 18 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 International Brotherhood of Magicians. Youth division is already mentioned at the target article. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 17:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I. B. M. Youth

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

This is the youth organisation for International Brotherhood of Magicians. This article has no reliable sources. As per WP:ORG, this is non-notable, there has not been significant coverage. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as a single paragraph into International Brotherhood of Magicians --Lockley (talk) 02:36, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Divina Enema

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A metal band from Belarus. I question their notability. The article is very poorly sourced and my sources turned up nothing better. The usual stuff came up: unreliable sites like Metal Archives, Discogs, Last.fm, GetSongBpm, Amazon, Youtube and the like, the rest of them were blogs, forums and trivial mentions. I found two sources that establishes notability: an album review from Chronicles of Chaos and a biography on Metal Inside. If I am correct, both of these sources are reliable since these are metal zines on the net. But if they are not reliable, then there are no RS to this band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yah, not seeing how this meets WP:BAND--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 01:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources Chronicles of Chaos is a reliable source but Metal Inside is not listed as reliable or unreliable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Interesting. Metal Inside is neither reliable nor unreliable. Then it's "neutral" (for lack of a better term) or what? Strange. I don't know. I always thought it looked reliable, but I don't really know anymore. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To determine it's reliability it would need a discussion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources talkpage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom Sidchakrab (talk) 14:24, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Jones (physicist)

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

Non-notable academic. The article originally included the claim that "Jones is one of only five black physics professors in Canada", a thin claim to notability in the first place, but that claim has been removed as there is no reliable source to verify it. No other claim to notability is made nor can any be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a full professor with his own group [17], and his h-index is fairly high at 42, but there isn't evidence of him passing WP:NPROF. Almost no sources exist about him. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Searching Google scholar for author:dba-jones gives me citation counts of 1610, 737, 291, 185, 165, 156, 116, ... but the heavily cited papers have a lot of coauthors. The ones on which he was first author start at 80 and 78 citations. According to this author biography he held a Tier II Canada research chair. Both the citations and the chair are borderline for notability (Tier I would pass WP:PROF#C5). I didn't find any sourcing about his ethnicity or being notable for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject has a Google Scholar profile, but a number of the articles on it are not from him. There are indeed some highly cited papers, but they also indeed have an awful lot of coauthors, and he's middle author in a field where order matters. @XOR'easter: I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this one. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a link to the GS profile? An h-index of 42 would give a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

[18], but it appears to include some unrelated medical papers as well. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, removing the medical citations I go for a Keep for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep Borderline arguments for passing WP:PROF#C1 and C5, per David Eppstein. (The "Ontario Early Researcher Award" [19] mentioned in the author bio seems to be more of a grant than a prize.) Sifting out the false positives in the GS profile (the algorithm including the wrong D. Jones, etc.), there's still enough for a decent C1 case. Being a middle author weakens the case, but not enough to erase it, IMO. XOR'easter (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The record isn't as nearly strong as it looks at first glance, but I believe that it is a marginal pass of WP:NPROF C1 (with support from almost-C5), per the arguments set out by David Eppstein and XOR'easter. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither his citiation record nor his academic appointments actually rise to a level of passing our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable academic. There is little to suggest that this particular person's contributions are of note. A Google Scholar search brings up a list of his papers, but a standard search brings up no references about him. There is little in way of sources about this person. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 19:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The available referencing looks pretty typical for an academic who is recognized for their work rather than their personal life. (That situation is kind of why WP:PROF exists at all.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Our Way

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

This album does not appear to be notable, as there are no reliable sources or significant coverage to be found. I can only find listings on retail sites. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Also, the notability of the band itself is questionable to me. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. Graywalls (talk) 18:23, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Change the Past

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

This is an article about an album called Can't Change the Past, although the article seems to call it 'Can Change the Past' as well. Anyway, I don't think it is notable. I can't find RS or coverage. Just to let you all know, there was an EP with the same name, by the same band, in 1998, adding to the confusion of looking for sources. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, just like the band's other album and the band itself. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't see how this passes WP:NMUSIC guidelines. --Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 21:40, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion led marketing

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

No sources whatsoever, no attempt at establishing notability has been made. Google doesn't return many results either. Megaman en m (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Megaman en m (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source provided by the author of this article does not mention the topic but focused on a different subject entirely. It is the responsibility of the creator of an article to establish its notability. This article failed all WP guidelines. Ugbedeg (talk) 5:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete Not even worth draftifying this until someone makes a better effort to begin with, but there wouldn't be much to use given the minimal search results available. --Xannir (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central College of Vocational Training Pvt. Ltd

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

All the signs of a WP:UPE spam. No signs of notability. Note that it's not a WP:NSCHOOL, it's a WP:COMPANY. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hy usedtobecool, I am new at wikipedia. So i don't know most of the policies but i am understanding at day by day and making some edits and artciles, Recently I had write about central college of vocational training pvt ltd, can you elaborate why this is under review for deletion. although it has strong citation and artciles, similarly i had seen kiec artcile but it has no issue but artcile about central college is same as it but why? can you please explain me about this so that i can make some edits and make it wiki friendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSaugatDevkota (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheSaugatDevkota do you have evidence that KIEC was created in return for undisclosed payments? I haven't looked at the article, so I can't say if it's certainly worthy of deletion, but that you mention it, it does look like WP:CORPSPAM The article, that is the subject of this discussion, does not have "strong citation"s. If Wikipedia articles supported by a few internet startup "news websites" with 1-3 "editors" and no journalistic credential were to be accepted, every company on earth would just setup three random websites to get itself on Wikipedia. No, we need reputable reliable sources that have significant coverage on the subject. If the organisation were notable, I would not nominate it for deletion. So, editing to make it "wiki friendly" is unlikely to be enough. What we need is proof that significant coverage exists in reputable reliable sources. I am pretty sure it does not. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now I had added many citations from reliable sources like tryocity, bossnepal, narayanionline and many more, and there is no intension to advertise any services or products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSaugatDevkota (talk • contribs) 09:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not . Those are just ads in the form of stories, in adsense websites masquerading as news portals. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:17, 7 June 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 12:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of GNG, and looks like spam. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 20:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. As pointed out above, this is a company masquerading as a school. It appears to peddle immigration advice and fails WP:COMPANY. Ifnord (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Non-notable company represented in an article which screams spam. Wikipedia is not for advertising. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:28, 19 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 Brandon Sanderson. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hard and soft magic systems (2nd nomination)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Magic system

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

This seems to be a concept invented by some bloggers that never caught on beyond their blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too much the product of one man's ideas to be considered a broadly applicable set of ideas as this article implies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Does this argument also work for the Chekhov's gun article? Chekhov's gun is a product of one person's ideas, and any product of one person's ideas cannot be broadly applied (?), and anything which cannot be broadly applied should not be a Wikipedia article (?), right? -NorsemanII (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Chekhov's gun is a broadly understood and accepted concept taught in established institutions of higher learning that originates from one of the great writers of modern literature. The same cannot be said of this pet theory of a contemporary genre writer of limited recognition.
Keep We already discussed this earlier this year – see WP:BEFORE and WP:DELAFD, "users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again ... It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." The topic is notable and so should be covered per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brandon Sanderson - Unlike the broader topic of Magic system, which was the primary article discussed in the prior AFD, this term/concept is based entirely on a single individual's idea. The sources currently in the article are all invalid for establishing notability (three are from non-reliable sources, three are just written by the person who coined the term). In the prior AFD, Andrew found one source that mentioned the concept, but even that was limited to summarizing Sanderson's paper on the subject, and is the only seemingly reliable source I have found discussing the concept in detail. However, while I don't think the sources support an independent article, the author that coined the concept is notable and has his own article, so it would make sense to discuss the concept there, though obviously the merge would need to be limited to just the definition and origin of the term, and not the copious, unsourced examples. Rorshacma (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brandon Sanderson per Rorshacma's rationale. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the consensus that it should be merged. The merger will reduce the length of the article of information vital to understanding the concept behind "hard and soft" magic systems, simply because they're not sourced properly. If this article in its complete form can be fused in the main one without cutting out the content, I would support the merger. I do not support it, however, on the basis that the ideas presented here are important for understanding different types of literary development on the subject of fantasy writing. girleymen (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information that isn't sourced properly is not supposed to be kept in articles regardless of whether or not a merger occurs. Rorshacma (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been sourced properly, it's all essentially the same one source. Someone else has added more links but the main content of this article has a source backing it. There are instances in Wikipedia articles were something is not sourced properly and still on the page and this site has been known to host links from unreliable sources that is the crux of criticism against it in the academic field. Removing this information weakens people's understanding of this concept, and a very helpful tool at that, on the ground that it only has one primary source? How many sources does it need to have to be notable? There are figures in history whose pages are less than a paragraph long that are still on this site. Should they be deleted too? girleymen (talk) Girleymen (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for keeping, but to answer your question, yes, information in any article that is not properly sourced should not be kept. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brandon Sanderson. The article is not notable in its own right, but is applicable and has enough references to be included in Sanderson's article. The examples, although unsourced, could be condensed and kept if given proper explanations. My recommendation is two examples per type of magic. BlacknoseDace (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brandon Sanderson. The topic itself is not notable, but it does deserve some coverage on the page of the person who invented the concept. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about notability: I would like to highlight that the terms are becoming increasingly used and have indeed caught on. You can see them on Reddit pages and YouTube channels that discuss fiction writing since as far as last year. Searching the terms "hard magic" or "soft magic" on r/magicbuilding, r/fantasy, or YouTube will point you to examples. Cosmonought (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- To alter a quote from Hitman 2, if Wikipedia looked to YouTube and Reddit as the sources that defined notability this website would have collapsed a long time ago. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for your kind explanation. In any case I am happy to throw in my two cents to note that these terms are searched and discussed a lot. Cosmonought (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that Reddit and Youtube aren't reliable sources, but they are a very good way to determine if things are becoming notable or popular. I would still recommend a merge due to the lack of reliable sources. BlacknoseDace (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to magic system, while it is an interesting topic and has some reliable coverage I don't see there being enough right now to have its own spin-off article. It could very likely (based on YouTube and Reddit searches) one day become more popular and earn its own article but not right now.★Trekker (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added six references from six different authors citing this topic including a book on designing magic systems for games. I came to Wikipedia looking for more information on this topic as it had come up in a discussion, and I would be mildly annoyed to have to sift through Sanderson's page or the page on magic systems to find this. This also should not fall into the same categories as Sanderson does (or vice versa), as that would also create an annoying barrier to finding the information I'm looking for. The article itself leaves a lot of room for improvement, but that's not what AfD is for. -NorsemanII (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those added sources are not from reliable sources, though. They're writing blogs, peoples' personal websites, etc. These are not considered reliable sources, per WP:SPS. Establishing notability isn't just finding how many times that a certain term or concept has been used on the internet, its finding information from actual reliable sources. The only one of the added sources that could be considered a reliable source is the one book that I already mentioned above. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 11 June 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 12:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see any evidence that this topic is covered by reliable sources. At present, except for the book source, all of the cited pages appear to be blogs. This is simply not enough to pass WP:GNG. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I just added two more references, one from a literary magazine and the other from a peer reviewed academic journal. Please people, just do a couple quick Google searches to see if a topic is notable before you try to claim it isn't and should be deleted. I've now added eight references to this article with a small amount of spare time. I genuinely don't understand how people can find the motivation to go find an article they're not interested in and write up a comment in favor of deleting it, without having the motivation to type a couple of keywords into Google. It boggles my mind. -NorsemanII (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NorsemanII: those new sources look much more better than the six added last week. The Mythlore article is certainly reliable and decently in-depth. I don't know about the other source though; do we know that The Curious Reader is reliable? After reading them I am leaning towards saying topic is notable.BenKuykendall (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one author's own idea about how writers can think about "magic systems" while writing a novel. It is simply helpful advice for writers and not a generally accepted, wide-spread concept or practice.
Keep It's similar to Chekhov's gun or Three Laws of Robotics. All of them are just some author's ideas. But that author is someone very very influential in all these cases. Also it's not just Sanderson's suggestions for better writing. Regardless of who first suggested this categorization, soft vs. hard magic system is a valid and useful way to categorize speculative fictions. navidk (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Neither the concept nor it's creator are a widely recognized and / or accepted as your two examples. It is not the same thing. In fact, it is nothing more that writing advice that said writer of limited recognition and importance uses in his writing classes.

Delete- Although this is an interesting subject and by no means the worst article of its type I have seen here, ultimately it is still too much of a how-to guide based on cobbling together bits and pieces from sources that are predominantly blogs. Reyk _YO! 14:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP yet again Six said KEEP months ago when this went to AFD, one said merge, and no one but the nominator said delete. Anyway, as I said last time: Whenever video games or other games are reviewed, they usually review the magic system as a key part of those games. Reliable sources give significant coverage to this concept such as https://www.cbr.com/shonen-action-rules-fullmetal-alchemist-my-hero-academia/ and https://www.thegamer.com/harry-potter-rpg-never-happen-because-magic-system-sucks/ Dream Focus 21:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable per WP:SIGCOV In January 2020 this subject's merits were debated and the editors overwhelming decided to Keep. Lightburst (talk) 22:00, 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 speedy Draftify to Draft:Spider roll (2) (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft/Spider roll

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

The text of this article has been placed at Spider roll several times, and reverted (mostly by me) as being largely unsourced or poorly sourced, overly instructional and, in places, largely irrelevant to the topic of spider rolls (including the general sections on popular sushi restaurants of Japan and sushi etiquette). It is clear that the author here was trying to create Draft:Sushi roll, but that draft already exists. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy draftify to Draft:Spider roll (2) or user's sandbox, or histmerge into the existing Draft:Spider roll. It's obvious that the user intended to create this in draftspace and I don't think it's worth spending a week discussing it. Concerns about sourcing and the quality of the article don't apply in draftspace. Spicy (talk) 15:02, 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 redirect to Stars of Track and Field. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 17:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You Came Here for Sunset Last Year

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

Another non-notable EP, it's difficult to find anything at all about this one, and certainly no RS or significant coverage. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Definitely not notable. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Redirect to Stars of Track and Field per Superastig. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stars of Track and Field: Barely found anything about the EP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. Why didn’t I think of that? Gonna change to redorect too. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:37, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zafar Masud (banker)

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

The subject fails WP:GNG, notable only as survivor of an airplane crash - WP:1E. Less Unless (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As CEO of a reasonably-sized bank, there should probably be sources somewhere (I know, I know, WP:BTMBS, but still...). I'll try to find them as soon as I have the time. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 20:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep The subject appears to be of interest to secondary sources based on coverage. This source says he's the son of a popular Pakistani television actor, Munawwar Saeed. This source further states he is a maternal grandson of Taqi Amrohi, a Pakistani journalist who was chief editor of the country's largest and oldest Urdu newspaper, Jang. That same source also says he's therefore a direct relative of Bollywood film director Kamal Amrohi (the latter being his grandfather's cousin). For those who may not know, Taqi Amrohi himself was also the brother of the two very well-known Pakistanis Rais Amrohvi and Jaun Elia, which this ref briefly notes as Kamal's relatives. While notability is not inherited, I guess the point is that there appears to be enough interest and sustained coverage of his personal life in addition to his career as the CEO of Punjab Bank that a decent article could be salvaged IMO. I just don't know if I'd have enough time to commit to it for now. This reading is just what I found while scratching the surface. Mar4d (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my !vote after reviewing some further sources and work. The subject is notable as a senior banker in Pakistan. I believe a good article can be written from the information that is present. Mar4d (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability per nominator. Most coverage only concerns a crash. Azuredivay (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that a lot of coverage at the moment is focused on the crash, it won't be entirely true to say that he wasn't covered by sources before. This ref from March gives better details about his experience and states he was CEO of Barclays in the southern Africa region, in addition to working at many other banks, being CEO of a credit finance company and formerly heading a government department. This one from April says he as 27 years experience in banking and was in the board of directors for the State Bank of Pakistan [20]. This one from October 2018 notes that he left the board some time in 2016.

This one from February says he's also a board of directors' member at the National Bank of Pakistan. This article is actually on Citibank's history in Pakistan but quotes Masud as a former Citibanker (and as per the article's own admission: Citibank seems to have produced more financial leaders in Pakistan than any other financial institution. In both Corporate Pakistan – as well as the government – it means something special to be able to call oneself an “ex-Citibanker”, more so than any other financial institution.) These are all before the crash, so I can see a case for enduring notability. Mar4d (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While many dots are being attempted to connect to establish the notability, there is clearly no evidence of notability. SyedAfzaal123 (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep per Mar4d. But he's non-notable except for being sole survivor of a plane crash. --Saqib (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CEO of a large bank. Bearian (talk)
Keep The fact that he survived a large plane crash alone is not enough to make him notable. However, I think he is notable, because he is the CEO of a large bank. Wikipedia:Find_a_Grave_famous_people implies that founders and CEO's of relatively small corporations are notable enough to have their own articles. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 10:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Not too notable, but the CEO of a large bank. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:29, 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 redirect to From Autumn to Ashes. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 17:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These Speakers Don't Always Tell the Truth

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

I can't find anything to suggest that this EP is notable. There are no RS and no significant coverage that I can locate. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to From Autumn to Ashes: Barely found anything about the EP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per Superastig. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:41, 18 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. (non-admin closure) JohnmgKing (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Complex (English band)

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

Withdrawn by nominator.

I struggle to find RS or much coverage for this band. There's this interview [21] in a psychedelic music magazine, and a fan blog post or two, but I don't think there is enough to pass GNG or the band notability requirements. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The band has an extensive profile on the French Website disquesobscurs.fr. Disques Obscurs appears to be a pass for WP:NEWSORG as it has an editorial team and professional reviewers. The Blackpool Gazette profiled this band in 2013, though they have now deleted the article from their website it was archived here. Record Collector Mag briefly reviewed one of their albums here - short but it does at least list the band members. The French book "Encyclopédie du hard-rock des Seventies" by Denis Protat appears to come from a professional publishing company called Editions Alternatives (i.e., is not self published) and lists their albums with a fairly long review of their second album, the text of which can be seen here. Appears to be a pass for WP:NBAND no. 1, specifically reliable sources are still talking about this band as notable some decades after their career.

BTW - researching this was an example of exactly the kind of rabbit-hole that doing work on the AFD page can lead you down - I'm not a psychedelia fan and knew nothing about this band but have just spent ~20 minutes doing nothing but read about them. Obscure, but notable. FOARP (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you, I will speedy keep this because your research shows it is notable and there haven't been any delete votes. I simply failed to find the sources you did.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although it sounds delightful for the kind of people that like that kind of thing, it's not encyclopedically notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Island

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

A non-notable event with non-reliable sources including WP:DAILYMAIL ~ Amkgp 💬 09:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 09:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 09:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 09:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only tabloid sources, nothing better found. Edwardx (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are lots of media outlets reporting about this event, including Fox News, NY Post, Vice.Com, and a lot of Colombian news sites, also național newspapers like Adevarul.ro. This event îs reported quite all around the world. Barecode (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as proposer) ~ Amkgp 💬 20:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even CNN report the event, also elpais, elmundo and Europa FM. I think it is notabile. Maybe ridiculous for some yet notable event. Barecode (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to say delete as proposer. It's already understood that you want to delete since you nominated it for deletion in the first place. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Cilio

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

Promotional page about a non-notable author with two self-published books and radio DJ whose page on the Italian Wikipedia has been deleted in an AfD entry, and then repeatedly re-created to the point it had to be indefinitely protected from creation. His only achievement seems to be the creation of an unofficial music chart that he promoted on minor radio stations. I feel like the author thought he could get away with spamming the page on here after being repeatedly rejected from it.wiki. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not promotional, evidence is given. He has 100.000 followers both on Facebook and on Instagram. It’s very well known in Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.112.15.71 (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

100k followers is known now? Leaving aside the fact that social media numbers can easily be manipulated, I have never heard of him, and the online sources aren't exactly copious. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 19:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Online sources (don’t delete them again please, this is not censorship) Pagina Facebook verificata a gennaio 2020 con SPUNTA BLU e oltre 110.000 fan (https://www.facebook.com/mezzosecolodiritornelli) Riquadro Google verificato a febbraio 2020 (https://g.co/kgs/4WE2Pt) Intervista su Radio Monte Carlo (https://www.radiomontecarlo.net/audio/1183246/STEFANO-CILIO-Autore-del-libro-.html) Intervista su RTL 102.5 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h70Us14Kc3k) Intervista su M2O Radio (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ng6EiMOmV0) Intervista su Radio Capital (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9HCYlr6bJ4) Articolo su Sette Corriere della Sera (https://www.pressreader.com/italy/corriere-della-sera-sette/20190906/283811445341208) Articolo su Rockol (https://www.rockol.it/recensioni-musicali/libri/964/stefano-cilio-mezzo-secolo-di-ritornelli) Articolo su Sentire Ascoltare (https://sentireascoltare.com/recensioni/stefano-cilio-mezzo-secolo-di-ritornelli) Utilizzo del libro su Rockol per una serie di 22 articoli (ad esempio https://www.rockol.it/news-713069/canzoni-italiane-le-piu-vendute-degli-ultimi-60-anni) Recensione su ADN Kronos (https://www.adnkronos.com/intrattenimento/spettacolo/2015/06/24/numeri-uno-mode-tormentoni-nelle-classifiche-italiane-tra_ABcCxrhE7irievgYH44fJO.html) Libro su Amazon (https://www.amazon.it/Mezzo-secolo-ritornelli-Stefano-Cilio/dp/8862316437) Libro su sito internet Arcana editore (http://www.arcanaedizioni.com/prodotto/stefano-cilio-mezzo-secolo-ritornelli-le-canzoni-piu-presenti-nelle-classifiche-italiane) Recensione su sito internet di Radiocity (https://www.radiocity.it/metti-in-valigia-mezzo-secolo-di-ritonelli) Recensione su CSI Magazine (http://www.csimagazine.it/review-stefano-cilio) Recensione su Inchiesta Sicilia (http://www.inchiestasicilia.com/tag/mezzo-secolo-di-ritornelli) Recensione su Eroica Fenice (https://www.eroicafenice.com/comunicati-stampa/mezzo-secolo-di-ritornelli-di-stefano-cilio-oltre-50-anni-di-musica) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.112.15.71 (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spamming official social media pages and direct purchase links for the book as well as some minor publications here and there... this proves nothing. As I said, Wikipedia is not a self-promotion platform. Hence the permanent erasure from it.wiki then, and the AfD here now. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 20:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should be deleted instead, you only apply censorship! Shame on you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.112.15.71 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor pubblications? Arcana is the number 1 music editor! Sette (Corriere della Sera) is the most read italian magazine! RTL, m2O and Radio Capital have millions of listeners... Adnkronos and Rockol are top 10 websites in Italy. Where do you live? 😂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.112.15.71 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with AFD, there is no self promotional material, every entry is linked and verified. He also has a verified Facebook Page, proving he's known in his country. Torsellino (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A blue tick doesn't mean much, considering even writing one single Buzzfeed article will get you one. What proves that he's not known (or at least, not relevant enough) is the permanent protection of the page from creation on it.wiki due to constant, persistent and insisting spamming. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 14:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He has no Buzzfeed article, please check facts before talking and spamming yourself. He has been verified by Facebook for his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.159.185.206 (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. Not a sausage on my search for sources. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little more than promotional spam. Social media verification standards are far, far lower than Wikipedia's notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep relevant radio speaker and book writer, journalist on magazines and on the net there are lots of interviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.159.79.8 (talk) 07:28, 19 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) 06:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rit Parade

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

Non-notable music chart presented by one minor radio station. The radio host's page has been repeatedly deleted (and is now indefinitely protected from creation) from the Italian Wikipedia for complete lack of notability. The one and only music chart the Italian music industry considers official is FIMI's weekly Top Singoli. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform, everyone in Italy knows the Rit Parade and radio show has 105.000 listeners every week. FIMI chart is not on the radio and it’s followed only by majors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.112.15.71 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spreading blatant lies such as that "everyone in Italy knows Rit Parade" (I've lived in Italy since I was born and I even worked for a music company, and I'd legit never heard of it before someone brought it up on it.wiki) is a clear intention of spamming said irrelevant chart - and Wikipedia is by no means a promotional platform. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 19:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Irrevelant chart? Are you kind of envious? 😂😂😂 People should get a life before judging the other ones’!~~

Please do not insult in this page. Nobody judges anybody. BTW I live in Italy and Rit Parade is very well known, the chart is on the radio and on a famous weekly magazine that considers the chart more significant than the F.I.M.I. one. I disagree with deletion, it's the only popularity chart in Italy and it deserves a page on Wikipedia. Furthermore there is no promotional tone in the article and every point is linked to verify. Official Facebook Page is verified, proving the speaker is known. Torsellino (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean a lot, considering you're one of only two editors of the page (a page, I shall remind everyone, has been rejected and permanently protected from creation on it.wiki for persistent spam and proven irrelevance). ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 14:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is it personal or what? Why don’t you stop insulting people? The only irrevelance is yours.~~

Wandering IP, no personal attacks are allowed, please do not post any. b uidhe 17:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Merynancy. Likely an attempt to continue promotionalism after Italian Wiki SALTed it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Nothing to indicate notability on my search either. I'm sensing shenanigans following the article being unceremoniously booted off the Italian Wiki, whom one would expect to locate any Italian language sources more easily than enwiki (if they were to exist). I would suggest that the closing administrator consider SALTing the title for good measure. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:39, 19 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. (non-admin closure) Eostrix (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine DiMasi

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

Failed political candidate (lost 2018 primary), does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. ~~Not notable as an academic.~~ Does not meet GNG. Eostrix (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, as I overfocused on her political bid and managed to miss her high h-index.--Eostrix (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 with an h-index of around 25. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her google scholar profile puts her h-index at 36 with approx. 4,500 lifetime citations. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 13:02, 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. No need to keep this open longer. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tawalewadi

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

I found absolutely nothing about this town. I tried looking for anything, but no reliable sources were found. This community is obviously not notable. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 07:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 07:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and move to Tavalwadi, which is the romanization used by the Indian government. Populated places do not require significant coverage. As long it is verifiable that a community exists, is recognized as a community, and has a population, it is kept according to Wikipedia guidelines. Tavalwadi is recorded in the Indian census [22] with a population of 1,206 (see page 84). It also appears on Google maps, and the presence of a temple called "Bavani Temple Tavalwadi" lends further credence to the fact that it is a recognized community, not just some random name on a map. There's really no point in keeping this open for seven days, because the article has no chance of being deleted (see WP:SNOW), so like most similar populated place nominations I feel a speedy close is in order. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 08:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as proposed by CactusJack above. I've also added that census reference and another newspaper mention into the article. AllyD (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per CactusJack. Mccapra (talk) 12:09, 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. Okay, I see a pretty reasonable consensus to not delete outright. Whether or not to merge can be determined at a discussion outside of AfD (it shouldn't need to be said that this close doesn't preclude a merge discussion, it invites it). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floating timeline

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

This article is entirely original research. There's a short WP:COATRACK of examples that's been thrown in by various fans. There's nothing to say here except a lot of long-running series are pretty inaccurate when it comes to characters' ages and real-world context. Other mundane plot holes you can criticize about fiction: the elasticity of how long it takes to go from one place to another, the number of fat sitcom dads with surprisingly attractive wives, video games where you can literally bring people back from the dead unless they are killed in a cut scene... again, you can make lots of funny observations about our entertainment. But articles need to be more than a short description of a trope, let alone an endless list of fiction that fits those tropes, based on original research. There isn't any significant coverage in third party sources to write anything other than a short description and a list of examples. Fails the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is some idea here but the name and content are not reliably sourced in a way to justify an article. Basically this can be addressed in article where it applies, beause there are lots of different ways it plays out, with multiple reboots and the like coming into place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only hits I got in Gbooks search was for Adobe Flash. This doesn't seem like a prominent term, and the article is largely a WP:DICDEF. The TVTropes article on this should be sufficient._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article as it stands is not properly sourced. However, I believe an appropriate article could be written, using sources like, e.g., the journal article "How Time Works in The Simpsons" (Abstract: "This article uses two groups of case-study episodes to explore the complexities and perplexities that arise from the long-running use of a ‘floating timeline’ within The Simpsons."), the book The Posthuman Body in Superhero Comics, the essay Myth of Superman referenced in that book, and other works of media criticism. This appears to be a term and concept in use which has received some coverage. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 05:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Waltonen, Karma; Du Vernay, Denise, eds. (2019). The Simpsons' Beloved Springfield: Essays on the TV Series and Town That Are Part of Us All. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 200–204. ISBN 978-1-4766-7455-1. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Goertz, Allie; Prescott, Julia (2018). 100 Things The Simpsons Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die. Chicago: Triumph Books. ISBN 978-1-64125-109-9. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Davis, Amy M.; Gilboy, Jemma; Zborowski, James (2015). "How Time Works in The Simpsons". Animation. 10 (15). SAGE Publishing. doi:10.1177/1746847715602403.
Aguasaco, Carlos (2017). "From the Picaresque Novel to El Chavo del 8". In Friedrich, Daniel; Colmenares, Erica (eds.). Resonances of El Chavo del Ocho in Latin American Childhood, Schooling, and Societies. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 73, 79, 82. ISBN 978-1-4742-9890-2. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Jeffery, Scott (2016). Sabin, Roger (ed.). The Posthuman Body in Superhero Comics: Human, Superhuman, Transhuman, Post/Human. London: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 53. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-54950-1_3. ISBN 978-1-137-57822-8. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Cross, Mary, ed. (2013). 100 People Who Changed 20th-Century America. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. p. 591. ISBN 978-1-61069-085-0. Retrieved 2020-06-07.

Sources with quotes

Waltonen, Karma; Du Vernay, Denise, eds. (2019). The Simpsons' Beloved Springfield: Essays on the TV Series and Town That Are Part of Us All. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 200–204. ISBN 978-1-4766-7455-1. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The article notes:
This is clearest in the way that The Simpsons works with a floating timeline. A floating timeline is a plot device used to explain or explain away inconsistencies in the way that events and characters exist within a world. In The Simpsons, the characters never age. Therefore, a number of inconsistencies are evident in the way that memories function for the characters. One famous example of this is found in the discrepancy between two episodes—"I Married Marge" (3.12) and "That '90s Show" (9.11). In the former, a flashback shows us that Homer and Marge conceived Bart in 1980 after watching The Empire Strikes Back at a movie theater. In the latter, Marge and Homer are at an earlier stage in their relationship, before conceiving Bart, and yet this is set in the 1990s. Despite this discrepancy, the age of the characters remains the same in the "present."
For the entire duration of The Simpsons, time does not seem to move on, and this means that, by and large, things do not really change. This subverts the typical purpose of narrative, which is to create a narrative arc in which characters grow and circumstances change. Because The Simpsons takes place in the perpetual present, the people who create The Simpsons have forced themselves into a loop that they must ultimately return to. They thus affirm the present, which equates to a symbolic affirmation of the way things are or the status quo. Of course, there are exceptions. For instance, when Maude Flanders dies, she really does stay dead ("Alone Again, Natura-Diddily" 11.14), and when Apu Nahasapeemapetilon gets married, he remains married afterwards ("The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons" 9.7).
Nevertheless, in the presence of this floating timeline and because of this insistence upon a perpetual present, things must by and large remain the same in world of The Simpsons. This means that, for the most part, it is possible to watch any episode of The Simpsons in any order without necessarily feeling any sense of dislocation or confusion.
Goertz, Allie; Prescott, Julia (2018). 100 Things The Simpsons Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die. Chicago: Triumph Books. ISBN 978-1-64125-109-9. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The book notes:
The Simpsons exists in a floating timeline typical of most animated shows. Due to the fact that the show's writers don't have to accommodate the aging of their actors, every episode of The Simpsons under the aging of their actors, every episode of The Simpsons is under the assumption that no time has passed from the previous week. No matter how many decades the show's run endures, Bart will always be 10 years old, Lisa will be eight, and Maggie will be sucking on her pacifier.
...
What's interesting about The Simpsons' take on their own future is their lack of loyalty to a singular view. Of course there are certain consistent broad strokes—Lisa's success, Bart's failings, Maggie's independence—but their Magic 8 Ball, scattered take on multiple outcomes makes the case that anything could be possible. Such is the very fabric of The Simpsons' own style of the floating timeline. It is a creative device to add new life season by season, allowing it to endure way beyond what any of us thought possible.
Davis, Amy M.; Gilboy, Jemma; Zborowski, James (2015). "How Time Works in The Simpsons". Animation. 10 (15). SAGE Publishing. doi:10.1177/1746847715602403.
The article notes:
Comic-Book Time, it is suggested, uses 'the illusion of time passing. You never refer to specific dates if you can help it, and you let characters change, but only a little' (emphasis in original). This trope, it is claimed, 'is also quite frequently called a floating timeline' (emphasis in original), and it is that label this article will use, as it captures well the idea of a fictional world which lacks a fixed timeframe with respect to both period and duration.
The Simpsons does not adhere neatly and consistently to any one of the above tropes. Predominantly, we will suggest, it utilizes a 'floating timeline', but not, as we point out, without deviations or complications. Moreover, as we demonstrate, the sustained deployment of a predominantly floating timeline over a period of decades creates a range of time-based perplexities for animated series like The Simpsons, perplexities which do not present an ultimate solution, and which encompass issues including how our understandings of fictional characters and of our own lives are informed by time-dependent phenomena including coming of age at particular points in world history, growing older, experiencing and expecting change, and accumulating experience and a biography to inform our sense of past, present and future. Sustained theoretical discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of a short article and the disciplinary territories of its writers. What follows is offered principally as a critical discussion of a popular and culturally-significant animated television series, which also attempts to relate the experience of time offered by The Simpsons to the varied experiences of time offered elsewhere on television, but which is ultimately committed to demonstrating the peculiarity, perhaps even the uniqueness, of how time works in The Simpsons, which it has achieved by virtue of being (i) an extraordinarily long-running, (ii) animated, and (iii) a television sitcom.
...
As noted above, one of the 'rules' of the 'comic-book time' or 'floating timeline' trope is that 'you never refer to specific dates'. The Simpsons occasionally eschews such a restriction – for example, in two famous (one of them, perhaps, infamous) episodes in which we learn about Homer and Marge’s courtship(s).
Aguasaco, Carlos (2017). "From the Picaresque Novel to El Chavo del 8". In Friedrich, Daniel; Colmenares, Erica (eds.). Resonances of El Chavo del Ocho in Latin American Childhood, Schooling, and Societies. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 73, 79, 82. ISBN 978-1-4742-9890-2. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The article notes:
There are several parallels between Lázaro de Tormes and El Chavo del Ocho: their names do not derive from their biological parents but from place names; their various trades and occupations; and the early age at which they are forced to fend for themselves. However, while Lázaro grows up in the novel, learns new trades and eventually gets married, El Chavo del 8 has a floating timeline that keeps the character frozen in time as a perpetual eight-year-old. In this sense, El Chavo del 8 follows a narrative procedure similar to that of the animated TV series The Simpsons in which the characters do not age throughout the course of 27 seasons. Maintaining this floating timeline allows RGB to update and rewrite his characters without having to represent their aging process and the social consequences of such impoverished living conditions and upbringing. His characters have no future, reality never varies for them, and thus they never face the sociopolitical consequences of the injustices represented in both the book and the TV series.
...
... As mentioned before, the floating timeline keeps the events represented in an everlasting present that permits RGB to rewrite, or at least to attempt to rewrite, some of the episodes.
...
... However, El Chavo del 8 was intended to be a realistic audiovisual comedy dealing with issues of childhood and inner-city poverty on a never-ending floating timeline. In other words, the characters are not allowed to grow old and therefore we can only trace the parallels and equivalences between El Chavo and the childhood and education of the picaros.
Jeffery, Scott (2016). Sabin, Roger (ed.). The Posthuman Body in Superhero Comics: Human, Superhuman, Transhuman, Post/Human. London: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 53. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-54950-1_3. ISBN 978-1-137-57822-8. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The book notes:
Dittmer, for example, argues that "the tyranny of the serial" enforces a "structural limitation" on comic book discourse. Wolf-Meyer 82 and Hughes 83 make similar points and all use Moore and Gibbon's Watchmen to illustrate their arguments, comparing the finite narrative of Watchmen with ongoing superhero narratives, whose ending is always indefinitely delayed in a "continuous present" as Eco called it (or "floating timeline" as the comics community sometimes refers to it 84).
Cross, Mary, ed. (2013). 100 People Who Changed 20th-Century America. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. p. 591. ISBN 978-1-61069-085-0. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The article notes:
The show operates on the basis of a "floating timeline," where the characters never age. Bart has been in the fourth-grade class of EEdna Krabappel since the first episode of the show. His mother, Marge, has even been quoted as saying, "It seems like he's been 10 forever."

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

Cunard (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even with the sources found, they all retread the same basic dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Would also support a redirect to cartoon physics, where you’d say that cartoons don’t age. Jontesta (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The concept is clearly notable (see above). The article is clearly under-sourced. That's not a combination suitable for AfD. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:36, 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! 07:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with continuity (fiction) which is a more common title for the broad topic. The issue of handling aging and time in fiction is obviously a thing but the sources seem quite weak and so we should consolidate to boil it down. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to continuity (fiction), per Andrew. As mentioned by Jontesta, even those found sources do very little but give a basic definition of the term, which is not really enough to actually develop an independent article. But, the continuity (fiction) article, as suggested by Andrew, would be the proper broad topic in which it could be adequately covered. Rorshacma (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Sources found talking about it, plus i click Google news search link at the top of the AFD and I see more. Whether this can be merged into another article that covers additional things as well, can be discussed on the talk page of the relevant articles. Dream Focus 15:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a fairly common plot device, which I knew about donkeys ago, and as a concept and dictionary definition, with some depth to it, its worth keeping. scope_creep^Talk 13:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. it is a genuinely valid literary concept which is worth keeping here. I agree the article should be given a bit more sourcing. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:32, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 17:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Dawn 7

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, even if we were to assume that every provided source is reliable (unlikely), none of them actually discuss the subject to any appreciable depth. Moreover, the operation literally didn't happen, as the article itself dramatically attests. Perhaps something could be mentioned at Operation Dawn 6 or First Battle of al-Faw, but between the sourcing and the difficult prose I'm not sure there's anything worth merging. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I modified/added some more related and independent sources to the article, which increase its notability. As well as this, the mentioned operation is written/available as a known operation based on the existing table(s) of Iran-Iraq-War (such as this, as one of the mentioned tables) Ali Ahwazi (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, across the sources provided the only ones that go into appreciable depth are primary source accounts. I still don't think I see a clear case for meeting GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere. I do not think an article about a military operation that did not happen is worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From a side, generally, you are right that an undone operation ... but the significant point is that: It was completely a designed operation which was stopped at the begging occasion of that by "releasing of water/river against the route of Iranian forces by Iraq; which is itself a kind of strategy duriing the war. So, it was itself a way of fight/war by another manner rather than weapons to damage its enemy; hence we cannot say that: it is not an operation, since Iraq stifled the Iranian forces by water/river rather that bomb -- although at the start occasion of the operation! Hence, it was/is one of Iran-Iraq-War operations which was removed/rejected by specific way of fighting, which is introduced amongst the formal operations of Iran-Iraq-War. Thanks. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite (because this actually did happen) - Whether this operation did not occur is neither here nor there. Wiki includes articles on fictional battles as well as future wars, so long as these are notable according to reliable sources and not excluded under WP:NOT. The only question that needs to be answered is whether it is notable according to reliable sources, and is not excluded by WP:NOT. The sources cited in the article clearly show it to be notable (e.g., this one and this one). The "Operation Dawn" offensives were a major part of a major conflict (the Iran-Iraq War), and indeed Dawn 7 did actually happen as an abortive attack (it continued for five days) though the article isn't clear about this the cited sources are and needs a heavy re-write. FOARP (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede the point on the basis of the additional English language source, but I do want to note that the Mashregh News source cited in the article is a first person account and not what we should be basing notability on. As a side note, there appears to be some disagreement between that English language source and what's at Iran–Iraq War; Razoux says that the Iranian assault was easily repelled, whereas our article says that the assault captured Mehran (it's cited to two sources, one of which doesn't mention the operation and the other is offline). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 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. Consensus that while the article has sourcing issues, NCORP is satisfied Nosebagbear (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DPR Construction

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

It seems the company fails notability per WP:NCORP. Although the article has a few references to normally reliable sources, the coverage in the articles is extremely trivial and contain interviews. The rest of the references seem to be primary or local. Really all the coverage, like awards won, seems to be trivial. The article is seriously written like an advert. Adamant1 (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Quinn, Michelle (1996-07-01). "Drawing the Line on Defection When Employees Leave and Compete Against Former Boss". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
Carlton, Jim (1999-06-02). "Taking Lessons From a Tech Book: DPR Construction Mimics Silicon Valley Strategies". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
"DPR Construction, Inc. MarketLine Company Profile". MarketLine. 2019-03-27. pp. 1–19.
Blair, Tom (1998). Dawson, David B.; James, Michael C. (eds.). San Diego: World Class City. Memphis, Tennessee: Towery Publishing. pp. 428–429. ISBN 1-881096-56-4. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
Reeder, Linda (2016). "Chapter 2: DPR Construction Phonex Regional Office". Net Zero Energy Buildings: Case Studies and Lessons Learned. London: Routledge. p. 19–31. ISBN 978-1-138-78123-8. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
Hackett, Robert (2014-11-13). "DPR Construction:Toasting the Boss (a.k.a. Everyone)". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
Novak, Shonda (2017-04-12). "DPR: Contractor booming with Central Texas' economy". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
Dickinson, Elizabeth Evitts (2014-12-15). "The Performing Arts: Why Occupant Behavior is the Next Big Thing in Green Building". Architecture. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
Bhattarai, Abha (2012-06-28). "DPR Construction". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.

Sources with quotes

Quinn, Michelle (1996-07-01). "Drawing the Line on Defection When Employees Leave and Compete Against Former Boss". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
Ultimately, their company, DPR Construction Inc., outpaced R&S, and in December was rated by Inc. magazine as the third-fastest-growing privately held company in the United States.
...
But separating is never easy. It often turns ugly: Rudolph sued DPR Construction and in June won a $7.1 million out-of-court settlement, which Rudolph estimates is roughly equal to DPR's net profits since it was formed. The decision to leave is often wrought with emotion, hobbled with financial and legal considerations and plagued with ethical dilemmas. What duty is owed a company or boss? Where does self-interest begin and loyalty end?
...
DPR is not far from R&S in Foster City but very different in style, from its name - which is taken from the first initials of their given names, Doug, Peter and Ron, rather than last names like Rudolph and Sletten - to its open, modernistic design. At DPR, company philosophy and mission is posted on the wall. And DPR has a clear succession plan that requires principals to start selling back their stock to the company at age 60.
...
No one would have cared about DPR if it hadn't become a success story. DPR is currently about double the size of R&S, with about 800 employees and $500 million in revenues this year, compared with R&S's 500 employees and $300 million in revenues.
Carlton, Jim (1999-06-02). "Taking Lessons From a Tech Book: DPR Construction Mimics Silicon Valley Strategies". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
This company has all the trappings of Silicon Valley success: outlandish growth, Democracy in the trenches, executives in open cubicles, even the Friday afternoon beer busts. But DPR Construction Inc. is focused on bricks and mortar instead of bits and bytes. The company has risen from out of nowhere over the past decade to become one of the major construction firms for the stars of Silicon Valley, building major projects for Apple Computer Inc., Intel Corp. and Sun Microsystems Inc. among others. As of last year, DPR’s revenue totaled $1.3 billion, 46% higher than 1997 and a nearly eightfold jump from five years ago. That growth rate, reminiscent of some successful Internet firms in the valley, is unprecedented in the construction business.
... As a result, DPR has earned what analysts call one of the best on‐time performances in the construction industry.
“They definitely are a trendsetter,” says Hoyt Lowder, senior vice president of FMI Corp., an industry consulting firm in Tampa, Fla., ...
The success hasn’t come without controversy. Some contractors complain the company undercuts them on bids, while raiding employees their firms by offering higher salaries. The loudest criticism comes from Rudolph and Sletten Inc., a rival in Foster City, Calif., from which all three of DPR's co‐founders resigned as senior executives in 1990. The men, Doug Woods, Peter Nosler and Ron Davidowski (DPR was named after their first initials), say they left Rudolph and Sletten after its founders reneged on a promise to eventually turn ownership over to the employees.
"DPR Construction, Inc. MarketLine Company Profile". MarketLine. 2019-03-27. pp. 1–19.
The report provides detailed analysis and background about the company:
The company has built a reputation for handling complex projects for a strong customer base. DPR's customers include major companies like projects for Facebook, Ernst & Young, Abbot Laboratories, AT&T, Nokia, Baker & McKenzie, and Sun Microsystems. Its client list also includes Pixar Animation Studios, Hewlett- Packard, Abbott Laboratories, Dell Inc., eBay, Inc., Oracle Corporation, Bank of America, Barclays Capital, Roche Molecular Systems, Maloof Sports and Entertainment, Yahoo, PricewaterhouseCoopers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and so on. A strong customer base ensures steady growth of the company. It also enables it to increase its brand image in a highly competitive market and subsequently attract high value clients.
...
DPR's business is concentrated geographically. Most of the company's operations are confined to the US market. This geographical concentration significantly limits the company's customer reach and exposure to developing markets in comparison to some of its competitors like Bechtel Group, which operate in markets other than the US. Bechtel group, along with the US, has its operations in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia Pacific, and Latin America which reduces the risks involved with its exposure to the domestic market dynamics. On the other hand, overdependence on a single market puts the company in a disadvantage as it loses out on emerging opportunities in other international markets.
...
DPR undertook several initiatives recently. For instance, in February 2019, DPR along with Perry McCall Construction was selected by the Baptist Health to build a seven story building that include Wolfson Children's critical care center in Florida. In the same month, the company was also selected by City of Tampa. The contract is to provide design build contracting services to develop The Hyatt House and Hyatt Place development project. In January 2019, DPR was given a contract by Mesa City Council, to construct Arizona State University at the Mesa City Center; and the Plaza at Mesa City Center. In November 2018, the company, along with Ridge Capital Inc, Lionakis and ZGF Architects was selected by the California State Teachers' Retirement System to build and design 275,000 sq. ft. building. In August 2018, the company was selected by Clemson University to offer project and construction management services for College of Business project. In the same month, the company was selected as a general contractor by Methodist Health System to build a 190,000 sq. ft. acute care hospital and a 45,000 sq. ft. medical office building in Midlothian.
Blair, Tom (1998). Dawson, David B.; James, Michael C. (eds.). San Diego: World Class City. Memphis, Tennessee: Towery Publishing. pp. 428–429. ISBN 1-881096-56-4. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The book notes:
When founded in 1990, DPR Construction, Inc. set out to challenge "customary practices" and to reexamine the relationships between building contractors and owners, developers, architects, and engineers.
...
DPR Construction, Inc. is recognized as one of San Diego's largest and most successful builders of privately owned facilities. Almost 10 percent of the company's total business on an annual basis is done in San Diego County alone. What is even more significant is that in an industry that generally purchases construction on a "low bid" basis, more than 95 percent of DPR's work companywide is done on a negotiated basis—a process where the project team and their qualifications are the primary selection criteria.
Reeder, Linda (2016). "Chapter 2: DPR Construction Phonex Regional Office". Net Zero Energy Buildings: Case Studies and Lessons Learned. London: Routledge. p. 19–31. ISBN 978-1-138-78123-8. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The book notes:
DPR Construction renovated an abandoned building into this 16,500-square-foot office in 2011 and achieved net zero energy performance for a cost premium of about $83 per square foot. In addition to office and support spaces like conference rooms, the building also contains a wine bar, kitchen café, fitness center, training room, and meditation room. Owner DPR Construction, a national construction company specializing in highly technical and sustainable buildings, led the project's design-build team with the goal of creating a building that was cost-effective as well as high performing.
Hackett, Robert (2014-11-13). "DPR Construction:Toasting the Boss (a.k.a. Everyone)". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
Since its founding in July 1990, DPR Construction (named for Doug, Peter, and Ron's collective monogram) has encouraged its workers to take the lead. The founders decided from the beginning that the new firm would be employee owned via a phantom stock program that ties compensation to company profits and individual performance. They even eliminated titles from business cards. And to prevent power struggles, the founders devised a buy-sell agreement that would bar shareholders from divesting stock to anyone outside the company. Everyone with equity is required to sell his stake back to the company beginning at age 60. Now celebrating its 25th year, the company has helped build projects ranging from Facebook's data centers to R&D labs for universities and pharmaceutical companies, and has opened 20 offices from Washington, D.C., to San Francisco. Last year the company acquired Atlanta-based Hardin Construction, and revenues hit a record $2.6 billion.
Already, two of the founders—Nosler and Davidowski—have relinquished their stakes in the company, as agreed, though they remain active as directors. Woods' ownership, too, is set to expire at the beginning of 2016.
Novak, Shonda (2017-04-12). "DPR: Contractor booming with Central Texas' economy". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
Amid Central Texas’ ongoing building boom, DPR Construction is one of the region’s busiest construction firms, with an ever-expanding list of high-profile projects bearing its banner.
...
These are but a few of the projects for a firm that has experienced extraordinary growth in revenue and headcount since 2013, the year it acquired Atlanta-based Hardin Construction Co.
DPR’s Central region, which includes, Austin, Dallas and Houston, has grown to $925 million in revenue, an increase of almost 300 percent from 2013. The figure accounts for about 21 percent of the firm’s $4.5 billion in revenue companywide.
In the Austin area alone,revenue has soared to a projected $375 million this year, up from $202 million in 2013.
Of DPR’s nearly 4,600 employees, 543 work in the Austin area, up from 170 people in 2013. Those include both salaried and administrative employees and craftspeople.
Dickinson, Elizabeth Evitts (2014-12-15). "The Performing Arts: Why Occupant Behavior is the Next Big Thing in Green Building". Architecture. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
The first thing that you notice about the San Francisco regional office for DPR Construction, a national builder known for highly technical and sustainable projects, is that from the outside, the building in no way resembles the typical headquarters of a construction firm. Located on a quiet street near the city’s famed Embarcadero district, the glass façade frames an interior that looks like a boutique hotel married an Apple Store. Bikes hang from interior racks. An open floor plan reveals a well-stocked kitchen with a mosaic of plants climbing the wall. Look closely and you can just make out the lobby cocktail bar, a custom-designed length of reclaimed wood containing a garden of live succulents capped in glass. Not a bad place for an office happy hour. “People walking by wonder whether we are a bike shop or a café, because it doesn’t scream construction,” says director of sustainability Ted van der Linden.
The open façade purposefully emulates DPR’s broader goal of transparency in building design and performance. Completed last May, the company’s San Francisco digs could become the city’s first net-zero office space (DPR is pursuing certification for the project with the International Living Future Institute). Designed by FME Architecture + Design, this is the third net-zero regional office that the company has completed—the others are in Phoenix and San Diego.
Bhattarai, Abha (2012-06-28). "DPR Construction". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
Each of the company’s 16 locations has a wine bar, with the exception of the DPR’s Texas offices, which have saloons.
...
DPR, which was founded in 1990 and builds offices, hospitals, university labs and other complex projects, counts “enjoyment” as one of its four core values (the other are “integrity,” “uniqueness” and “ever forward”).
...
Employees gather at the wine bar one afternoon every month to toast milestones, ranging from new contracts to new babies.
The article includes quotes from employees.

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

Cunard (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A 1996 article in San Jose Mercury News notes, "Ultimately, their company, DPR Construction Inc., outpaced R&S, and in December was rated by Inc. magazine as the third-fastest-growing privately held company in the United States. ... No one would have cared about DPR if it hadn't become a success story. DPR is currently about double the size of R&S, with about 800 employees and $500 million in revenues this year, compared with R&S's 500 employees and $300 million in revenues." (R&S was the company that the three founders of DPR worked at before founding DPR. The article notes, "R&S sued DPR in San Mateo County Court for breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition and theft of trade secrets.")
A 1999 article in The Wall Street Journal notes, "The company has risen from out of nowhere over the past decade to become one of the major construction firms for the stars of Silicon Valley, building major projects for Apple Computer Inc., Intel Corp. and Sun Microsystems Inc. among others. As of last year, DPR’s revenue totaled $1.3 billion, 46% higher than 1997 and a nearly eightfold jump from five years ago. That growth rate, reminiscent of some successful Internet firms in the valley, is unprecedented in the construction business."
A 2014 article in Fortune notes, "Now celebrating its 25th year, the company has helped build projects ranging from Facebook's data centers to R&D labs for universities and pharmaceutical companies, and has opened 20 offices from Washington, D.C., to San Francisco. Last year the company acquired Atlanta-based Hardin Construction, and revenues hit a record $2.6 billion."
A 2019 MarketLine report notes, "The company has built a reputation for handling complex projects for a strong customer base. DPR's customers include major companies like projects for Facebook, Ernst & Young, Abbot Laboratories, AT&T, Nokia, Baker & McKenzie, and Sun Microsystems. Its client list also includes Pixar Animation Studios, Hewlett- Packard, Abbott Laboratories, Dell Inc., eBay, Inc., Oracle Corporation, Bank of America, Barclays Capital, Roche Molecular Systems, Maloof Sports and Entertainment, Yahoo, PricewaterhouseCoopers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and so on."
Cunard (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 06:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article suffers from the overuse of WP:PRIMARY sources, I still feel there is enough for WP:NCORP. Really could do with an overhaul on sources. Govvy (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also extremely trivial coverage in the sources provided by Cunard that don't pass NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References as per cunard are independent, have detail about company performance and cover more than one subject. Davidstewartharvey

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stelth Ulvang

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Going for five years, but barely any coverage. Could be wrong. Nothing on Soundcloud, Spotify or Apple music. scope_creep^Talk 08:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep As a response for your "barely any coverage" comment, he has already been covered by -

All of which are one of the most reputed sources in USA and are present as citations in the article. And by the way, he is on Spotify as well as Soundcloud and Apple Music. I don't think you researched properly brother. I don't think that anything else is needed to say on this anymore because this is particularly vague. A man who has been covered by all the forementioned media outlets can not be, on earth, irrelevant. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The subject of the article clearly fulfils criteria no. 1 amongst the criterion specified by WP:MUSICBIO. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi @Pesticide1110: A lot of it seems to be affiliate and paid advertising and there is not a lot of coverage in Europe. As a western band, if successful, there would be plenty of coverage on both continents, as it is a core market. It seems to be common pattern with successful bands, but I don't see it here. I could be talking nonsense, but I've done reams of these bands on NPP now and that is what you generally see, and I don't see it here. They may be ultra successful in the US, but UK papers like the Times and the Telegraph would report on them and there would be coverage and there is not. As far as I can see, its a local or regional band, who are signed, with some limited success, which is the worst kind of notability to establish a article on here. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON.scope_creep^Talk 08:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be using the Afd etiquette, when posting a note on here.scope_creep^Talk 08:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just think you are being over-critical here. Paid advertising? Forget it. I'm not commenting on that. But he has been covered by a British Newspaper as i have stated above and as well as some African (because they once toured there) which you can find in the article. You have a good point here but I'm sure you will concede the fact that you don't need to be "ultra-successful" in a region to be notable or have questions raised about your notability because you have been majorly covered across only one country. In fact, the latter could sometimes could be wrong but only in cases regarding small countries; being covered across USA is more than enough. The guy knows how to play more than 20 instruments and is regarded highly for his prolific songwriting amongst those who know him and there are many of them since The Lumineers have huge fan following. And wait, Stelth Ulvang isn't a band. He is a solo artist who is also a member of The Lumineers. Nice talking to you Pesticide1110 (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, what matters is that if he fulfils at least one condition on WP:MUSICBIO; which he of course does so that's enough to take our focus from this to something more critical and fragile. Plus, the article is in pristine condition. Better than almost every article covering a subject of an equivalent stature. So rather than removing this article, we should first focus on the ones which are more probable to bring disrepute to Wikipedians. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pristine condition isn't a really a factor. WP:MUSICBIO although a policy, is also only a guideline. At the end of the day, all article needs to be notable. The Lumineers are certainly notable. Could be wrong on this, but I don't know, hence the discussion. See what happens. scope_creep^Talk 09:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the first 3 sources in the list above for WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC points, Allmusic doesn't count (WP:RSP), SLCW looks ok on the face of it, clearly not a passing mention so it's one of the several needed, and not that Independent but South County Independent is an interview and not that helpful in this context (WP:Interviews). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the People ref in the article doesn't seem to mention him at all. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People's article might have been edited. As far as i remember, i used to it to cite some of the instruments he played. Further, the ones that i have cited, South County Independent and WPFK Independent, are well-established and equally reliable if not more. Just a reminder that i have only named some of the prominent ones and not all. Almost every citation in the article is reliable and its source has a good reputation. Otherwise, the references would've been removed or detected by automated filter. As i said, anyone who checks the article without prejudice can tell that it, in no condition shall be removed. Otherwise it will come in the category of substandard edit or vandalism. And we all know that the these two words are galaxies apart from it. Pesticide1110 (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And by your context of "helpful", i would like to suggest you these references of the article - 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 18, 22, 23, 25. These are all reliable and helpful for this article's case. Also, have a look at this [23]. Pesticide1110 (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3 may or may not be ok per WP:RSSM, I'm sceptical that 6 is a BLP-good source [24], 8 is probably ok [25]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So im signing out of this conversation now. If you want me to answer any questions regarding this, feel free to ask but please ping me. Because i barely get time to check this thing. Thank you for the polite conversation. Pesticide1110 (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Pesticide1110 (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got some more useful citations in the article. So i'd like to request my fellow editors that they have a look at the references of the article for their confirmation. In my humble opinion, there shouldn't be any doubt about notability at all when a publisher like Salt Lake City Weekly writes this about you - "Ulvang—originally from Fort Collins, Colo.—is an accomplished musician and singer-songwriter in his own right and a prominent figure in the Denver music scene". You can find this excerpt in the 2nd paragraph of citation no. 4 of the respective article. Thanks! Pesticide1110 (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I think there's a good chance this article will be kept, you seem to be ignoring words like multiple and several in the WP:N context, and, being even more cynical, what's so impressive about Salt Lake City Weekly? Sure, it counts as a WP:GNG point, but nothing about [26] screams "no doubt about WP:N!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång You got me a bit off the line gentleman. I didn't mean that just that it is Salt lake city weekly, there shouldn't be any doubt. I was trying to stress on their quote. If a musician is being described as "prominent" and "accomplished", which is the exact same thing all this fuss is about, by a trusted source then why should we keep waiting for more editors to comment. And also i'm not ignoring the word "multiple" in regards to WP:N. It is quite clear from the references that there ARE multiple sources for it that are non-trivial and not interviews. I just didn't feel the need of mentioning such a basic and easily observable info (have a look at the new citations i provided today). P.S. i'm not cynical about you all. We all are the building blocks of this vast and diverse community and i can never claim to be a part of any community unless i trust the fellow members. I have full-faith and i know that all your actions are for the sake of wikipedia. And so are mine. Best Pesticide1110 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert Now do we need to ask personally to get you to explain how your point is valid? It, in fact, isn't. P.S. Gråbergs Gråa Sång you commented on the topic but did not give your judgement so please do. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you're referring to WP:MUSICBIO. As i have already said, it meets the criteria no. 1 because out of all the 32 references that are cited in the article (which satisfies "multiple"),

Almost all are "non-trivial"
None is "self published" (except for official website)
There are citations present in the form of "newspaper articles" (ex- Salt Lake City Weekly, Deccan Herald, Daily Herald etc.)
"Online versions of print media" are present (ex- Westword, Oregon Live etc.)
"Magazine articles" are present too (ex- Scene Magazine, 303 Magazine, The Bulletin etc.)
And as for "Television Documentary", this [27] might work.

Thus it meets all the requirements stated in criteria 1. This thread was created because the editor had doubt about the notability of the subject which i have successfully addressed now. Hence, this article shall be kept because it has been proved to meet the inclusion criteria. Johnpacklambert have you got something in your defense? scope_creep and Gråbergs Gråa Sång shall also intervene. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep, Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Johnpacklambert In my knowledge if an article is nominated for deletion and its corresponding thread remains inactive for more than 7 days without any comment in support of keeping the article, then it gets deleted automatically. This is just to let you know that if this article gets deleted this way, then i will make sure that all 4 of us end up in some arbitrary committee discussion and it won't only be about article. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We might get more input if there was less badgering of voters
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is my strongest argument in defense of the article so i'm going to repeat it here and put all of my strong points here so that editors can read it one go. As i have already said, it meets the criteria no. 1 specified in WP:MUSICBIO because out of all the 32 references that are cited in the article (which satisfies "multiple"),

Almost all are "non-trivial"
None is "self published" (except for official website)
There are citations present in the form of "newspaper articles" (ex- Salt Lake City Weekly, Deccan Herald, Daily Herald, The Morning Call etc.)
"Online versions of print media" are present (ex- Westword, Oregon Live etc.)
"Magazine articles" are present too (ex- Scene Magazine, 303 Magazine, The Bulletin etc.)
And as for "Television Documentary", this [28] might work.

Thus it meets all the requirements stated in criteria 1. Also, TEDx had this to say about him.

P.S. There are many sources in the article which are well-reputed and have articles on wikipedia of their own:

The New York Times (Non-regional)
Rolling Stone (Non-regional)
All Music
Salt Lake City Weekly
TED conference (Invited as a speaker)
Deccan Herald (Non-regional)
Daily Herald
The Sydney Morning Herald (Non-regional)
Albuquerque Journal
South County Independent (Non-regional)
Westword
Colorado Daily
People
Colorado Public Radio
OregonLive.com
The Greenville News
Boulder Weekly, etc.

Further, Stelth Ulvang has 29387 monthly listeners on Spotify and he is also available on major music platforms like Soundcloud, TIDAL and Apple Music. Together with Lumineers, he has toured with U2 and opened for Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers both of which are often cited as one of the greatest rock bands in the history. Salt lake city weekly described him as an "accomplished musician" and "a prominent figure in the Denver music scene". And thus i put all i had to create this article and somehow it felt something really close to perfection to me. At the end, i will like to apologize for any rude behaviour because this nomination came as a shock to me since Grabergs Graa Sang himself stated there was a "good chance that this article will be kept" on my talk page prior to the publish. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pesticide1110: "Non-trivial" coverage means there is a decently-sized amount (at minimum 1 lengthy paragraph) devoted to the person independently, not in the context of The Lumineers. Also, being available on the major music platforms or having nearly 30,000 Spotify listeners is not a notability criterion. Username⁶⁸⁹² 04:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Username6892: And even from that perspective of a non-trivial coverage, Ulvang satisfies the criteria because majority of articles are entirely written about him and not in The Lumineers' context as you can see. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to The Lumineers. doesn't seem to meet WP:NPERSON or WP:MUSICBIO independently. The best coverage of him is a profile in Salt Lake City Weekly. However, almost all the coverage is in short profiles ahead of his performing (see for example Sound Hot Ticket: Nick Jaina, The Lumineers' Stelth Ulvang are coming to Provo and Packed house for Stelth Ulvang). Coverage of him is largely limited to local news sources, most of which describe him as "The Lumineers Stelth Ulvang" which tells me that his significance is largely dependent upon being a member of the band. To show independent notability we would expect in-depth articles in comparatively large news sources (not regional) covering his career outside of the lumineers, like reviews of his EP's, features about him, evidence his music has charted somewhere. I simply don't see that depth as the coverage stands. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891 And where is that stated in any guideline or rulebook of wikipedia? I hope you don't mind me but i made this article based on the guidelines stated by WP:MUSICBIO. And i think we should primarly focus on those criterion and not what an individual like you and me think. Further, i will like you to atleast explain how does it not meet the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO on his own. I explained, with proofs, that he does. But your's comment just states your opinion without any backing. Further, those are just two citations of the 33. There are many citations which address him as "Stelth Ulvang". P.S. I don't remember those guidelines stating anywhere that regional sources are a problem. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop aggressively badgering voter s. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz What did i say aggressive now? I think its just the different style of writing which is making you all believe that im aggressive while im totally calm about all this. Can you please tell me what line is aggressive so that i can make amends to it? Pesticide1110 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

just stop responding to every vote and let people chime in without pestering them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pesticide1110: I think it is worth letting the Afd proceed on its own merit. Wait until its finished. scope_creep^Talk 21:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz Ok fine. But atleast you can ask eddie and rest to prove their points with evidences just the way i did. They are just stating their opinions without backing it up. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The closer will review the comments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To respond, I am not convinced of a pass of MUSICBIO or GNG outside of the lumineers as the depth of coverage stands. You are correct that we don't have specific criteria saying that regional or local sources are inherently worse than bigger media. I'll direct you to WP:AUD which, while it applies only to corporations, lays out a good principal. If somebody isn't getting coverage outside of smaller publications, they likely aren't notable.

You seem to also be making two different arguments; first you argue for coverage that meets notability about him outside of The Lumineers, then you cite Rolling Stone magazine and The New York Times as a main reason he's notable, both of which only mention him in passing and as a member of the band. I don't have a personal stake in this, and probably won't be commenting further, but that's how I see things as they stand now. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The tedx entry is a profile amongst other profiles and doesn't really establish bona fides. scope_creep^Talk 16:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Favor keep, but redirect to The Lumineers over deletion. I love the work you've done since the article was nominated, Pesticide1110, and have more faith in this version than what was initially presented here. Eddie, however, brings an excellent point to the table. He might meet GNG, but I think he's "close but no cigar" on criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO, which you've been pushing. It might say "multiple", but you can't just have more than one and call it a day, either (not that that's quite what you're doing). What I'm more concerned about is if enough of his coverage fits the "non-trivial" bill presented in that criterion. If this is as deep as his profile goes, I'm uncertain if it's worth keeping on Wikipedia at this time - his only real occupation that got him relevance and notability in the first place is touring with the Lumineers, a notable band. (And only touring with, so he doesn't meet criterion 6 of MUSICBIO either.) So I'm torn - I'm happy with letting this stay, but if it's truly the right thing to do, maybe it'd be best we redirect him to the band's article. dannymusiceditor ^oops 21:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Lumineers would be best for now until one can be easily convinced that WP:MUSICBIO has been satsified. NavjotSR (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lumineers Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. KidAd (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Normally when I do a Google News search on people where there's a long debate about notability, I don't find hundreds of hits, with the subject's name in the headline! Many of these articles seem notable, easily meets GNG. (and I think goes without saying that it would never be deleted, but redirected). Nfitz (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz The majority of the search listing that come with that search term, are the same references above, except the ones which are the Lumineers or related to them,or events listing or a single listing in which the Ulvang is doing a gig in a library. The search confirms his non-notability. scope_creep^Talk 08:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG, in a way, states that if a person searched on google is the subject of enough no.s of "independent", "non-trivial" and "reliable" sources, then he IS notable. And that is what Nfitz has tried to explain by those search links. Scope creep's job was to nominate the article and reason his point while my job was to give my evidences and leave. I did that upon being asked. So i request someone if they can ask scope creep to now become a spectator. I would happily leave this conversation if done so. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter User:scope_creep if most of the hundreds of references don't meet GNG. Some do - which is all you need. Heck, probably only need two one, two, three. And as Pesticide notes, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" (WP:BASIC. Are you really claiming that there aren't enough reliable sources to write an article? Please follow policy! Nfitz (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per Nfitz. Although eddie puts a strong point, danny and Nfitz, in all likelihood, are correct. He clearly meets WP:GNG and, by the skin of a teeth, meets WP:MUSICBIO. Best ClumsyMind (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Why are we talking about this? It's clearly notable. I have no idea why some people are expecting an American band to be covered in European news sources. That's not required for notability lol. Stop wasting everyone's time please. Bluedude588 (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another pair of editors that don't use policy. Curious why you think it is speedy keep, when the majority opinion thinks thinks it should be redirected. Looks like canvassing to me. Can you please tell me, why you think it is speedy keep? scope_creep^Talk 17:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was also very nice of User:ClumsyMind to come out of retirement ~~(to) just disregard policy.~~ KidAd (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like both are following policy - there's hundreds of references, easily meeting the WP:BASIC guideline of "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" is met. And there's a handful of truly significant GNG referenes to. Nfitz (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post them up, so we can take a look at them. He may actually be notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This is the simple search that was used: [29]

Lets go through the first three pages, after that it just becomes junk.

Facebook
Instagram
Wikipedia article
Own page
Twitter
https://stelthulvang.bandcamp.com/ His page. Non-notable
https://thereader.com/music/te Ten Questions with Stelth Ulvang The Ft. Collins singer/songwriter and traveling member of The Lumineers plays at The Slowdown April 20. Its on the Lumineers.
A Message From Stelth Ulvang - The Lumineers - Lumineers again.
Youtube - Stelth Ulvang "Denim"| CME Sessions 1900 views. Non-notable.
Youtube - 5 Questions w/ The Lumineers: Stelth Ulvang 12k views. Non-notable.
https://www.westword.com/music/how-the-people-of-new-zealand-inspired-stelth-ulvangs-new-album-6302934 About quitting The Lumineers. 2011.
first-avenue.com › performer › stelth-ulvang-lumineers. The The Lumineers
https://do317.com/p/plugged-in-series-stelth-ulvang. Plugged in. An interview.
https://www.oregonlive.com/music/2016/01/stelth_ulvang_lumineers_portland_tour.html The Lumineers.
IMDB
cpr.org Lumineers. Single small para.
https://thebluegrasssituation.com/read/watch-stelth-ulvang-mornings/ Some music of his.
https://knickmusic.com/events/2018/5/11/stelth-ulvang-of-the-lumineers-with-y-la-bamba-and-glenn-kendzia Lumineers event listing page.
https://equipboard.com/pros/stelth-ulvang Profile page. Kit he uses. Non-notable.
Tour date
Tour date
Amazon
https://1883magazine.com/tag/stelth-ulvang/. profile page. Non-notable.
https://www.setlist.fm/setlists/stelth-ulvang-13c9b1dd.html tour listing. Non-notable.
https://soundbetter.com/s/stelth-ulvang Folk who worked for the Lumineers.
Event listing
https://www.sofarsounds.com/artists/stelth-ulvang Profile page. Non-notable.

That is the three pages. Please show where he is notable, where there is three secondary sources, that are in-depth and reliable. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 20:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the SLCW [30] counts, that's one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. https://www.dailycamera.com/2015/03/18/lumineers-stelth-ulvang-returns-to-his-roots/

2. https://www.westword.com/music/how-the-people-of-new-zealand-inspired-stelth-ulvangs-new-album-6302934

3. https://www.oregonlive.com/music/2016/01/stelth_ulvang_lumineers_portland_tour.html

There's three sources that took me all of five seconds to find. I marked this speedy keep because you are wasting everyone's time. And you think there is canvassing going on because people are pointing out the stupidity of this nomination? Bluedude588 (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluedude588: Can you lose the language and the badgering, before you end up getting blocked.

This is an event listing and is non notable. Doesn't establish notability.
This is first album after he left the Lumineers. That was five years ago, early Feb. 2015.
This is an event listing for a gig. Doesn't establish notability.

scope_creep^Talk 21:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What language? I'm not gonna get blocked for criticizing your nomination. Event listing in that much detail establish notability. And notability does not go away, so your mention of it being five years ago is irrelevant. You don't seem to understand what notability means. I'd suggest you go read up on Wikipedia's policies. Bluedude588 (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second time looking at that, those two gig references are when he was still in the Lumineers, indicating a clear case of redirect. scope_creep^Talk 21:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: He was still in the Lumineers at the point. scope_creep^Talk 22:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? It's still decent coverage of him. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluedude588: I think I was casting aspersions, when mentioned canvassing. Sorry. scope_creep^Talk 22:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Calm down brother. Follow the advice you gave to me. You don't need to reply to every comment that goes against you. Just sit back with me and watch the conversation going on. Being accused of badgering isn't nice. And if you continue with these heaps of messages then you are going to be accused soon because you seem to be threatening Bluedude so that he yields to your counter-arguments. Also, your reply to a very experienced and respected editor like Nfitz was also not very respectful. Calm down man. Let it be short so that the reviewer does not have to search for info. I hope you understand. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KidAd: He didn't come out of retirement on his own. I, mistakenly, emailed and requested him to take part in the discussion (for which i have apologized by email). I was emailing another user but my phone was not responding correctly and i somehow, instead of Missvain, emailed him. Btw just because his opinions differ doesn't mean that he is disregarding policies, he is disregarding this thought about deleting/redirecting the article based on his own conscience. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I recanted my previous statement about disregarding policy. KidAd (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is WP:CANVAS, WP:STEALTH and potentially WP:VOTESTACKING then. scope_creep^Talk 07:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you lost control on yourself? First of all, i wasn't calling him out. I was calling Missvain, who is an admin and will never betray wikipedia policies. Second - i didn't call out anyone to come and SUPPORT the article. I called them out to come and do a COMMENT here because there was no comment for 48 consecutive hours. I tried to email her because i had already left a message on her talk page. She is considered very experienced so i was trying to convince her to comment her (which is not needed now since many editors have already commented). The fact that i added this discussion in colorado-related AFDs further strengthens this reasoning. And this was the only email i sent because i didn't feel motivated to do such a tedious work. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz Won't you intervene now? When i was putting evidences here, you were quick to order me to stop it and stop badgering, but when scope_creep is bombarding this thread with heaps of acontextual comments and badgering other editors while also accusing them baselessly then you are not here. Why is this? Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pesticide1110: Please do not revert. You don't restore to a previous version in Afd discussion. scope_creep^Talk 08:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I'm not here to create an edit war. But i hope you got my point. I concede that i should not have tried to email missvain once she neglected me on her talk page. But that was days ago and i tried to email her out of desperation because no one was here to comment. Now that the traffic is back, there is no need to call out editors personally and hence i havent done that. I only messaged 2 editors to come here which were chosen randomly. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 08:47, 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 keep. With the finding of additional sources, there now appears to be a consensus that the character has self-standing notability Nosebagbear (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel (The Last of Us)

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

This article does not demonstrate notability in any way. The "Character development and design" section is copied directly from Development of The Last of Us; "Attributes" has no useful or notable information; "Appearance" is just plot straight from List of The Last of Us characters; and "Reception" is copied directly from The Last of Us#Reception and is only about his relationship with another character, not him as an individual (with an extra listicle on "sexy video game characters"). Fellow game character Ellie has received enough coverage to demonstrate notability, but the same cannot be said about Joel, and his coverage is best left at the characters article. – Rhain ☔ 00:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – Rhain ☔ 00:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Rhain ☔ 00:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. – Rhain ☔ 00:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Last of Us, this feels a bit like WP:FANCRUFT dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 01:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Rhain:, I noticed you created the article on Ellie which is now a GA article. Both characters received the same amount of coverage and awards. Both pass WP:GNG, is covered by multiple reliable sources, and has similar influence on gaming culture. Joel article could be massively expanded and pass GA. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 05:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having researched the game, its development, and reception, I can confidently say that Joel has not received the same amount of coverage (or awards) as Ellie, nor has he had the same impact on gaming culture. There’s a reason I’ve never split the article myself for the topic; the character is simply not notable enough. – Rhain ☔ 05:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on secondary reliable sources, having the exact same level of coverage is not a requirement. In most of the sources which mention Ellie, Joel is mentioned as well, for example in this Game Informer source Joel is mentioned:

“

The Last of Us tells the story of Joel, a taciturn smuggler, and Ellie, a brash young girl. They are brought together by chance in the months following a global epidemic that has killed millions and left thousands of others wandering the country as sightless, feral "infected.

This duo's journey starts with a simple transaction. In exchange for a cache of weapons, Joel and his partner Tess are tasked with delivering Ellie to a group of revolutionary survivalists who believe she holds the key to a possible cure for the disease. It ends with one of the most complex conclusions I've ever seen in a game. In between, you experience a survival adventure that features both quiet beauty and brutal violence in abundance.

Though Joel and Ellie's journey is grim, it remains rooted in one of the most poignant, well-drawn relationships I've seen in video games. The light, campy quality of the Uncharted series causes some to overlook Naughty Dog's brilliance at creating realistic, believable dialogue. Using its skill in service of The Last of Us's somber tale, the studio created another high mark for interactive storytelling. As Joel and Ellie's relationship grows, we come to know them as friends, giving each fight to save their lives real weight.

”

Joel was nominated for "British Academy Video Games Awards" British Academy Games Award for Performer and Golden Joystick Awards for Best Moment, "Joel's loss". The character won Spike Video Game Awards's Best Voice Actor for Troy Baker. This character undisputedly passes out GNG guidelines and with the second game being release this character will only receive further coverage. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 12:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that the character had to have the "exact same level of coverage", but Joel doesn't even come close to the GNG, in my opinion. In most of the sources to which you refer, including the one you've quoted and highlighted, the discussion is about the relationship between Joel and Ellie; there is not enough independent coverage on Joel as an individual character to warrant a separate article. As for awards, I should clarify that Troy Baker won 1/3 notable awards for his role as Joel, compared to Ellie/Ashley Johnson's 5/5 (not that awards are too significant a demonstration of notability anyway). – Rhain ☔ 14:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search demonstrates many sources which puts this well above GNG. Wikipedia really needs to stop its love affair with trying to delete every single character article that isn't in perfect shape, it seriously damages the site and I'm seeing it a tons recently.★Trekker (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@*Treker: Google searches are not the best demonstration of notability. Pretty much every source refers to him, but next to none are really about him. I’ve researched this topic for years (excuse my big head, but I’ve worked on an FA, two FLs, and five GAs in this topic) and there simply isn’t enough information about Joel to maintain a separate article. I’ve not nominated this article because it’s “not perfect”, it’s because (besides some copy-editing), the article is in its best and fullest state: there’s not enough coverage of the character for any more expansion, and in this state, it does not demonstrate notability. And trust me, I’m certainly not interested in targeting every character article—I worked for months trying to convince other editors that List of Red Dead Redemption 2 characters should stay, not to mention my work on this, this, and this—but this character should not have his own article. – Rhain ☔ 07:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. This character has received significant coverage as one of the primary characters in a game widely regarded as among the greatest of all time.

Condense massive list for page readability. ——Serial^# 15:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"The Last Of Us Part II: 'A game about bad people doing bad things to survive'". BBC. 2019-09-25.

The article notes:

It's been six years since Ellie and Joel adventured across a post-apocalyptic America in the hugely successful game The Last Of Us.
"It wasn't just another game about zombies, it's about humans and people - and ultimately the relationship at its core between Joel and Ellie.
She's still burned from how Naughty Dog stayed vague about Joel and Ellie's relationship before the release of the original game, and what the characters were on the road to achieve.

Myers, Maddy (2020-06-01). "The Last of Us Part 2 co-writer: 'There are no heroes or villains'". Polygon.

The article notes:

Unlike the first The Last of Us, which focused primarily on Joel’s journey as a father who lost his daughter and then formed an unlikely bond with the teenage Ellie, The Last of Us Part 2 predominantly focuses on Ellie’s perspective. Now she is the one making hard choices, the one to whom the player needs to be able to relate. I asked Gross if the team had any concerns about this game focusing less on Joel and more on Ellie. As players who have completed the first The Last of Us know, the game concludes with Joel telling a lie to Ellie. It’s a lie that forces the player, and perhaps also Joel, to question whether the violence that just transpired was necessary or right. It makes sense, then, that guilt hangs over every moment of The Last of Us Part 2. It’s baked into the combat design, as Ellie decides moment to moment whether to hide or to engage in combat. But, in the grand scheme, there is no choice for Ellie. She’s pulled into a larger-than-life conflict simply because of who she is, a scrappy queer teen who just so happens to be immune to the virus that has destroyed society.

Vincent, Brittany (2020-05-19). "The Last of Us Part 2 brings pulse-pounding adventure to PS4 this June, and you can preorder it right now". CNN.

The article notes:

This summer, you can dive back into another world that's been brought to its knees by a pandemic: a post-apocalyptic vision of the United States following the rise of a mutated strain of the Cordyceps fungus. While the first game introduced rugged survivor Joel, who came into contact with a scrappy young woman named Ellie, the sequel is set five years after the events of the first game. Joel and Ellie have moved to Wyoming, and Ellie has grown into a wiser teenager who isn't afraid to fight for her survival. When she comes into contact with a mysterious Christian cult, she must take arms to protect the ones she loves -- and the way of life she's come to know.

Hood, Vic (2020-06-01). "Hands on: The Last of Us 2 review". TechRadar.

The article notes:

The Last of Us 2 has big shoes to fill. Not only was its predecessor critically acclaimed, but fans became emotionally invested in the fate of protagonists Ellie and Joel - a testament to developer Naughty Dog's emotive storytelling. Perhaps our favorite improvement is to the upgrade system. Where The Last of Us saw Joel collecting supplements to improve specific abilities, The Last of Us 2 offers different skill branches, allowing you to use supplements to upgrade specific branches of abilities such as stealth, precision and explosives. You can unlock new branches by finding training manuals.

Suellentrop, Chris (2013-06-14). "In the Same Boat, but Not Equals". The New York Times. Retrieved 2020-06-02.

The article notes:

You can see why people really like the game. The animation is nearly photorealistic. The characters’ eyes are full of life and emotion, with none of the vacancy gamers so often confront. Their eyes give Joel and Ellie, the two characters that the player spends the most time with, a weight and a reality that surpass all other video game characters.
The Last of Us aspires to be an interactive, mixed-company version of “The Road,” in this case the story of the relationship between an older man and a 14-year-old girl as they try to survive in an oppressive and deadly wasteland. Almost throughout, however, it is actually the story of Joel, the older man. This is another video game by men, for men and about men.
Ellie is such an appealing and unusual video game character — an Ellen Page look-alike voiced expertly by the 29-year-old Ashley Johnson — that at one point I found myself rooting for Joel to die so that The Last of Us would become her game, a story about a lost young girl instead of another look inside the plight of her brooding, monosyllabic father figure. To my surprise, the game almost relented.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the character Joel to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The strongest source is the latter from 2013 a NYT source giving Joel extensive coverage. There are several more sources from NYT and LAT. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 08:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: With all due respect, none of those sources demonstrate significant coverage of the character in question. The first one simply mentions "Joel and Ellie's relationship" without any significant discussion about Joel. The second seems to specifically emphasise why Joel is less important in the second game. The third and fourth simply mention him by name, that's it. The fifth seems to have one useful sentence—"This is another video game by men, for men and about men"—but ultimately (and explicitly) shows why Joel is significantly less notable than Ellie. You're right in saying that these are reliable sources, but they are most certainly not "significant coverage". I'm yet to read anything significant about this character. – Rhain ☔ 14:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an edge case between meeting and failing WP:GNG. I know a sizeable portion of Joel's reception is his relationship with Ellie but I do not think that would constitute the topic being WP:INHERITED. I think the best course of action will be to redirect this back to List of The Last of Us characters and put this back to draft. Subsequently, after the launch of the sequel, given its extensive media coverage already, the topic will more easily be able to satisfy GNG. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 10:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to character list. The sources listed above and in the article do not assert the character's independent notability from the game. The article effectively operates as a coat rack for trivia that is sufficiently covered in the existing parent article, character list, and summary style Development article. Not seeing enough Reception/impact to warrant the split. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to character list. I have to remind myself that it's important to read the article and check the references instead of measuring them in inches. Much of this article isn't directly about the subject, and already covered elsewhere. The relationship between the characters is really better covered at a character list. Yes, there are arguably two lead characters in the game, but it's really the other one that's become notable. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the game may well be widely regarded as among the greatest of all time, but notability is not inherited, and this particular character has received insufficient coverage in independent, third-party reliable sources to justify an independent article. Czar's reasoning, as well as the analysis from Rhain, is wholly convincing. ——Serial^# 15:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Banks, Jaime; Mejia, Robert; Adams, Aubrie (2017). "Joel". 100 Greatest Video Game Characters. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 87–88. ISBN 978-1-4422-7813-4. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Cruea, Mark (2018). "(Re)reading Fatherhood: Applying Reader Response Theory to Joel's Father Role in The Last of Us". In Taylor, Nicholas; Voorhees, Gerald (eds.). Masculinities in Play. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 93–108. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90581-5_6. ISBN 978-3-319-90581-5. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Voorhees, Gerald (2014-09-03). "Mourning Sex". First Person Scholar. University of Waterloo. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Murray, Soraya (June 2019). "Playing Whiteness in Crisis in The Last of Us and Tomb Raider". Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association. 4 (3). Digital Games Research Association. ISSN 2328-9422. Archived from the original on 2020-03-21. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Serrels, Mark (2013-07-03). "Joel Is The Last Of Us". Kotaku. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Reeves, Brianna (2019-03-14). "Our Favorite Characters: Joel and Morality in The Last of Us". PlayStation LifeStyle. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Cheeda, Saim (2019-10-10). "The Last Of Us: 10 Best Joel Quotes". Game Rant. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-07.

Sources with quotes

Banks, Jaime; Mejia, Robert; Adams, Aubrie (2017). "Joel". 100 Greatest Video Game Characters. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 87–88. ISBN 978-1-4422-7813-4. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The book notes:
Joel is the anti-hero protagonist and principal player character of Naughty Dog's The Last of Us (TLOU), a video game about post-apocalyptic America. A tough and rugged individualist, he is a hardened survivor of a pandemic that struck twenty years ago. To survive in this world, he has become a smuggler of medicine and weapons. Surprisingly, Joel's enemies are not so much the infected but his fellow human survivors who fight over scarce resources and territory. Paradoxically, the infected are not as monstrous as the other human survivors, making Joel's story a tale of what it means to be human in an inhuman role. ...
... Joel's character assumes significance for his anti-heroism that is constellated around resisting the commodification of humans. His character destabilizes our notions of love, community, and morality to explore the limits of our humanity in a dystopian world.
Cast as an archetypal, flawed anti-hero obsessed with self-preservation, Joel resonates for many of us who likewise put a high premium on self-interest. He wins the gamer's sympathies because he lives while his loved ones have died. To assuage guilt requires redemptive mortification, as argued by Kenneth Burke. Joel's mortification comes in the form of living the life of a survivor who fights the zombie-like infected yet is a virtual zombie himself—dead within. Thus Joel's character points us to a part of a person's life that may have become desensitized or lifeless due to personal trauma or alienation. ...
Paradoxically, failing humanity is Joel's act of self-redemption. Joel redeems himself by holding on to someone dear to him and abandoning the broader cause of humanity's cure. Thus, Joel's character animates the conflict between ethics and criminality but also the classic tension between self-interest and the common good, reminding us of the constant, "dualist" tendencies in human nature. By saving Ellie's life, Joel is also saving himself. True to his mantra, "No matter what, you keep finding something to fight for," he hangs on to Ellie as his raison d'être after losing all else precious to him. In the end, Joel's defiance of the commodification of Ellie, wanted and prized for her brain, is his ultimate act of heroism and redemption.
Cruea, Mark (2018). "(Re)reading Fatherhood: Applying Reader Response Theory to Joel's Father Role in The Last of Us". In Taylor, Nicholas; Voorhees, Gerald (eds.). Masculinities in Play. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 93–108. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90581-5_6. ISBN 978-3-319-90581-5. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The book notes:
In many ways, Joel is a complicated character and his life experiences and circumstances shape who he is. During the opening series with his daughter Sarah, Joel most closely embodies the nurturing version of the New Man and correspondingly, the New Father. While this segment of the game is fairly short, we see Joel as a single father who is closely attached to his daughter. There is an emotional connection between the two that is evident as Sarah lovingly gives Joel the gift of a watch, a gift that he keeps as a memento long after it has stopped working. Reflecting the key Nurturing New Man and New Father characteristics, Joel is sensitive, caring, and emotionally engaged with Sarah, and as a single parent, he is responsible for the home and childcare.
Twenty years later, Joel is a changed man. Unfortunately, the change is regressive as his actions are more symbolic of the Old Man and Old Father. He is gruff. He uses violence to solve his issues, and upon meeting Ellie and hearing the request to escort her, he is very reluctant. The only way that Tess convinces Joel to take the job is by convincing him that Ellie is simply cargo; Joel views Ellie as a means to an economic end; she is just another job. He is also unconcerned with his appearance, which is in direct contrast to what he looked like at the beginning of the game. Other characteristics that tie to the Old Man/Father include Joels strength of body, aggressiveness, strong heterosexuality as evidenced by his relationship with Tess and his emotional distance from others.
However, as the game progresses, the relationship between Joel and Ellie transforms. Eventually, Joel begins to use terms of endearment with Ellie that had been previously reserved for Sarah. For example, at the beginning of the game when he first tucks Sarah in at night and then later when Sarah is dying, he calls Sarah his "baby girl." Further into the game after Ellie has killed David, Joel comes to her aid and calls Ellie "baby girl." He uses the term once more when rescuing Ellie from the hospital. The decision to make such a connection through language was a small, but important, rhetorical device for Naughty Dog, symbolizing that Joel now regards Ellie as his own child. The care that Joel shows is quite emblematic of the New Father, and this care is communicated through his tenderness and loving words. However, Joels character doesn't fit the New Man/Father completely. Since Joel consistently takes away Ellies agency, he partially embodies the Old Man/Father by using force or deception to control Ellie. He also effectively annihilates all presence of a mother by killing Marlene near the end of the game. As well, Joel fails to truly nurture Ellie in ways that help prepare her for life without him. Instead, he unfailingly serves as protector. In many ways, the Joel that appears at the end of the game is a mixture of the Joel at the beginning as New Father and in the middle, as Old Father.
Voorhees, Gerald (2014-09-03). "Mourning Sex". First Person Scholar. University of Waterloo. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The article notes:
Heroic Masculinity: Selfish Joel

In The Last of Us Joel's masculinity is at stake. The question is not whether Joel is a man, or even whether or not he is manly. Rather, the problem that some players and commentators confront is that Joel acts in a manner that betrays the kinds of heroic masculinity that American society typically valorizes. ...
For the first nine-tenths of the game Joel perfectly embodies the parameters of heroic masculinity. He excels at his chosen occupation and exercises paternalistic control over his (surrogate) family. He is strong and capable of committing violence, breaking laws as readily as he breaks arms. However, one precept of heroic masculinity Joel spectacularly fails to exemplify is the notion that 'real men' are heroes who are willing to sacrifice in order to do the 'right thing.'
...
To accept this or, more radically, to adopt the perspective that Joel is a villain, (discussed here, here and here, among other places,) is melancholic. For players holding onto the notion of heroic masculinity, what Joel does is unacceptable and his offense against heroic masculinity must be witnessed and tried in the court of public opinion. True, gender is not explicitly evoked in Joels condemnation, but its more than naïve to think that Joel's excoriation just coincidentally occurs along the lines of his violation of gender norms.
To describe Joel as an antihero, flawed but redeemable, is to mourn. Yes, at the end Joel takes on stereotypically feminine traits and role. So be it. Heroic masculinity is a construct and Joel's violation of the precepts of heroic masculinity do not make him a villain or a "broken man." They make Joel human — more human than the broken conception of manhood American culture celebrates.
Murray, Soraya (June 2019). "Playing Whiteness in Crisis in The Last of Us and Tomb Raider". Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association. 4 (3). Digital Games Research Association. ISSN 2328-9422. Archived from the original on 2020-03-21. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The article notes:
It tells the story of Joel, a white working man and single parent, and his pale, slight, blond daughter, Sarah, with whom he has a close relationship. It is clear that Joel has long, strenuous workdays, and is under duress—he is not well-off and is clearly represented as doing his best despite the odds. ...
While it is immediately clear that Joel is resourceful and jaded enough to address his circumstances pragmatically, he (as the playable character) is clearly traumatized and endangered. His look and manner are consistent with mainstream representations of a "heartland" American male: presumed straight, Caucasian, shortish dark hair and beard, assertive carriage, able-bodied, and wearing a western-style shirt and jeans. He doesn't talk much, and is acerbic when he does.
...
The impossible, imperiled position of whiteness is embodied in Joel, the bedraggled protagonist and primary playable character of The Last of Us. He is self-consciously normal and "everyman" in his manifestation, possessing neither superhuman powers nor the skills of a supersoldier. He is vulnerable, emotionally shut down and compromised, definitively an anti-hero. At some point in the narrative, his young partner, Ellie, takes on the protector/provider role after he is seriously injured.
...
Joel is in many ways a cypher for the so-called American average hardworking man, come to the end of his rope and emptied out of his inherent value in a society that has changed around him. ...
Teetering at the mouth of this gaping emptiness, Joel of The Last of Us demonstrates a similar disorientation, but it comes in the form of a deathward-looking melancholia that is staved off for the purpose of protecting Ellie against a hostile environment.
Serrels, Mark (2013-07-03). "Joel Is The Last Of Us". Kotaku. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The article notes:
Joel is the protagonist of The Last Of Us and he is old. His hair is ragged and greasy, flecked with gray; his skin pallid and wrinkled. Joel doesn't kill with the youthful exuberance of a half-tucked Nathan Drake, or the lumbering ultra violence of Marcus Fenix. Joel must stand still or he won't make his shots. Joel needs time to heal himself. Joel must hide and creep. Joel says little but bears the weight of those he has killed, the terrible things he has seen and done.
Decades ago; you imagine a sprightlier Joel. He carries a lighter conscience. Killing comes easy. Joel might have been Nathan Drake or Marcus Fenix in a past life. He might have been Master Chief, a silent killing machine with zero empathy or remorse. He might have been. But now, today, as the PS3 and the Xbox 360 trundles towards its last hurrah, Joel is the last of us, The Last of Them. He is the ragged, reluctant killer. Bone tired of shooting at enemies from cover; world weary — literally he no longer wants to engage with the universe he inhabits. Joel is the last man standing in a shootout we've endured and participated in for an entire generation.
Joel is the last of us.
Joel is a permanent fixture in the ruin of the world we once built; a testament to the technology that transformed our lives. Now it is our tomb. Skyscrapers that once soared effortlessly into a vertical vanishing point lean precariously on one another for support, crumbling beneath the weight of their own history. We are part of that history: a generation of gamers repeating the precise same mechanic, across multiple different games a terrifying amount of times.
Reeves, Brianna (2019-03-14). "Our Favorite Characters: Joel and Morality in The Last of Us". PlayStation LifeStyle. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The article notes:
In PlayStation Lifestyles favorite character column, well celebrate, you guessed it, our favorite game characters. Personally, The Last of Us' Joel came to mind immediately, though not because I favor him over others. Rather, I hoped to examine what about him resonated most with me. Years after its release, talk of TLoU still dissolves into dissecting Joel as hero, villain, or anti-hero. Many deem him one of the latter two archetypes; no hero would damn humanity to selfishly protect a loved one. But Joel isn't heroic, nor does he try to be. We cant hold him to the standards of Superman. Joels an average joe who, before the apocalypse, appeared struck by financial woes. As such, faced with a similar conundrum under similar circumstances, how many of us would save Ellie? I believe I would.
...
In a just society, no one should have to choose who lives or dies. The nuances are too numerous; plus, fundamentally speaking, its morally inept. However, The Last of Us exists in a time absent morality's governing human behavior. Should Joel be judged amoral, then, villainous? Is he as depraved as the men and women he fights to ensure Ellies survival? It's a matter of perspective. From my perspective, the answers no. Joel preserving Ellies future over that of humanity's does not equal amorality. If anything, it accentuates his humanity. He lost his only child, Sarah, to an insensitive act, carelessness, behavior he witnesses tenfold and with much more intensity for 20 years after civilizations fall. As far as hes concerned, TLoUs version of mankind is undeserving of yet another sacrifice.
Cheeda, Saim (2019-10-10). "The Last Of Us: 10 Best Joel Quotes". Game Rant. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The article notes:
Joel's grief over his daughter's death led him down a path of darkness so bleak, that he came out as a completely apathetic person two decades later. This was needed, though, since it served as juxtaposition to the Joel we saw later in the game.
...
There's a lot of debate that has gone on for over six years whether this scene cemented Joel as a villain or not, but theres no question it was incredibly impactful. Although Marlene had given him several chances to leave when she could've killed him, Joel didn't extend the same courtesy to her when the tables turned.
...
Before the winter chapter of The Last of Us, we hadn't seen the tender and loving side of Joel. Hed been caring to an extent, but he hadn't been outright fatherly toward Ellie up until he said these words.

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

Cunard (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel received substantial analysis in a six-paragraph chapter titled "Joel" in the 2017 book 100 Greatest Video Game Characters published by Rowman & Littlefield. A sample quote: "Joel's character assumes significance for his anti-heroism that is constellated around resisting the commodification of humans. His character destabilizes our notions of love, community, and morality to explore the limits of our humanity in a dystopian world. Cast as an archetypal, flawed anti-hero obsessed with self-preservation, Joel resonates for many of us who likewise put a high premium on self-interest. He wins the gamer's sympathies because he lives while his loved ones have died."
Joel received substantial analysis in a chapter titled "(Re)reading Fatherhood: Applying Reader Response Theory to Joel's Father Role in The Last of Us" in the 2019 Palgrave Macmillan book "Masculinities in Play". A sample quote: "In many ways, Joel is a complicated character and his life experiences and circumstances shape who he is. During the opening series with his daughter Sarah, Joel most closely embodies the nurturing version of the New Man and correspondingly, the New Father. ... Reflecting the key Nurturing New Man and New Father characteristics, Joel is sensitive, caring, and emotionally engaged with Sarah, and as a single parent, he is responsible for the home and childcare. Twenty years later, Joel is a changed man. Unfortunately, the change is regressive as his actions are more symbolic of the Old Man and Old Father. He is gruff. He uses violence to solve his issues, and upon meeting Ellie and hearing the request to escort her, he is very reluctant."
Gerald Voorhees, an assistant professor in the Department of Drama and Speech Communication at the University of Waterloo wrote a 2014 article with a section titled "Heroic Masculinity: Selfish Joel" in the First Person Scholar journal. A sample quote: "To accept this or, more radically, to adopt the perspective that Joel is a villain, (discussed here, here and here, among other places,) is melancholic. For players holding onto the notion of heroic masculinity, what Joel does is unacceptable and his offense against heroic masculinity must be witnessed and tried in the court of public opinion. True, gender is not explicitly evoked in Joels condemnation, but its more than naïve to think that Joel's excoriation just coincidentally occurs along the lines of his violation of gender norms."
Soraya Murray wrote a 2019 article in the Digital Games Research Association's Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association journal which provides substantial analysis of Joel. A sample quote: "The impossible, imperiled position of whiteness is embodied in Joel, the bedraggled protagonist and primary playable character of The Last of Us. He is self-consciously normal and "everyman" in his manifestation, possessing neither superhuman powers nor the skills of a supersoldier. He is vulnerable, emotionally shut down and compromised, definitively an anti-hero. At some point in the narrative, his young partner, Ellie, takes on the protector/provider role after he is seriously injured."
Cunard (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Secondary notes: "Examples of useful information typically provided by secondary sources about the original work, or primary and secondary sources about information related to the work, include".
This "information external to the work" recommendation is clearly met by these sources, which provide substantial analysis of Joel.
Cunard (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to above editors showing sources. An article does not fall under WP:FANCRUFT if it is notable on it's own merits, which this is. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 00:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Sources found prove this is clearly a notable topic. Dream Focus 02:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard, as for the comments of the quality of the article I believe WP:DINC is particularly revelent here. Hitpoint0213 (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the article, the subject matter is clearly notable judging by the citations. Captain Galaxy (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, it might skirt by on notability, but this content is better served in an overview article rather than standalone. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, too many reliable sources to not be notable. Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Came across another reliable source focussing on Joel [31]. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 11:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Cunard presented plenty of reliable sources which makes the article notable. with his horrible death on sequel, there will be more sources to be produced describing him and his tradegy of the game. 200.104.247.250 (talk) 06:10, 18 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 feel that there is a borderline consensus to delete but there appears to be editors willing to work on this and I see no harm giving them a chance to do this. If sourcing is not improved and this is renominated then the outcome will undoubtedly go the other way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books of Swords

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

This detailed overview of the fantasy series is based on primary sources and fan sites. Searching for independent reliable sources turned up some reviews of individual books, so perhaps a few of the 12 books might be individually notable, but the series as a whole is not the subject of those reviews and does not appear to be notable. RL0919 (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. RL0919 (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Fred Saberhagen's obituary in The Guardian devotes a paragraph to the series, plus it gets a bit of attention in his Encyclopedia of Science Fiction article. That plus the reviews the nominator mentioned is (barely) enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think a series of twelve books by a notable author is clearly notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of works by Fred Saberhagen: I don't think that the sources in the article, or the sources identified by Clarityfiend, or any other sources I've been able to find, constitute significant coverage. I also don't think that reviews of individual works in a series can contribute to establishing notability for the series as a whole, though I concur with the nominator that some of the individual works may be notable. Still, this is probably a plausible search term, and is covered in the list of works (the lede of this article could perhaps be added there to provide some context), so redirecting makes sense. (Whether the list should be trimmed and/or merged into Fred Saberhagen article is another matter.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs to be revised and seriously shortened. But the series meets the criteria of notability and has won several awards. I think the warning about content/style should stay as a guideline for future editors, but removing the article in its entirety will just create a vacuum for a new version shortly thereafter. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If some individual books are independently notable but not all, it seems preferable to have one page on the series as a whole, emphasizing the notable works, rather than several individual articles. My thinking here is influenced by the idea that a book might not merit its own article but might merit mention on an author's biography article. The existing article clearly needs substantial editing to focus on the encyclopedic content about these books, but I think a suitable version of this article could exist. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 20:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of works by Fred Saberhagen for now. I think the series might just barely clear the bar for notability, per Clarityfiend's argument, however at this time, the current article is pretty unworkable. Aside from the listing of books, the rest of the article is comprised entirely of non-sourced plot material. We really can't keep that, and the article needs to be completely rewritten to be more about the series' real world notability. Until that is done, it would be far more useful to just Redirect searches to the author's page, as the list of books is the only content currently here that would really be worth keeping. If the article is ever rewritten with reliable sources, it can then be split back out. Rorshacma (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I tried to do some of the basic rescue work, deleting a lot of fancruft and adding information about the series as a series. Compare the current version to its state when nominated. I think the consensus above has been that the series itself _is_ notable; I'd say that the argument for deletion/redirect was, essentially, that the state of the article was so poor that when someone wanted to make a properly encyclopedic article on this notable topic, it would be easier for them to start from nothing. (And that in the mean time, it was undesirable for readers to encounter the poor-quality article.) I think the article is now improved enough not to bring shame upon our heads, such that when an editor wants to dedicate their time to this topic, they will be better served by beginning from the current version than starting from nothing. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 21:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a major improvement on the article. The new version is in a much better state for rebuilding and adding additional citations re: the reception/impact of the body of work. -- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again I think my summary of consensus is a bit inaccurate -- some of the arguments for deletion/merging are on the grounds that there is not enough significant coverage to prove the series' notability. My own position is that the series is notable. I can see how the four sources cited in the article (two of which are new) might still be somewhat flimsy grounds for notability, but my relatively causal research has persuaded me that sufficient sourcing almost certainly does exist. I also think the coverage in the obituary and encyclopedia entry constitute "significant coverage" in context: by definition these articles will be very brief and mention very few things; a few sentences which would be a passing reference in a very long article become a high percentage of the total impact in these short pieces. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 21:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your work on the article, the sourcing still strikes me as very weak. The introduction by Saberhagen's wife isn't an independent source and doesn't contribute to establishing notability, and two of the other sources contain, as you say, only brief mentions of the series. Only the Tor.com article goes into the kind of depth we'd need in order to be able to write an encyclopaedia article based on reliable sources. If multiple sources along those lines existed that would tip this over into notability, but if they existed someone probably would have identified them by now. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Tor article is the best source currently cited (good catch on the Joan Spicci one-- somehow despite the name I hadn't pinged that she was his wife), but I disagree with the conclusion that it's the only good one that likely exists. I think I've been the one mostly looking for sources, and frankly, I haven't been looking very hard. I noodle on this article, which I'm not particularly invested in, after I'm done with my real research for the day. Every time I look, I turn up new sources (like the AV club history of "science fantasy"), which suggests to me that there is more to be found, especially in print sources (since the books are from a print era), giving grounds for WP:NEXIST. A lot of my thinking is also shaped by the fact that, e.g., An Armory of Swords satisfies WP:BOOKCRIT all by itself (just added two reviews), and it looks like almost all the individual books got Kirkus reviews (getting them halfway to their own articles), but it seems much less desirable to have twelve individual articles for each book. It seems more appropriate to discuss them as a series, since the reviews of each book always reference the series. And more can be usefully written about them as a series -- I think a really worthwhile version of this article could exist someday, but I don't think the Armory of Swords article could ever be anything special. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 05:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...It seems more appropriate to discuss them as a series, since the reviews of each book always reference the series." Totally 100% agree with this assessment. Better to strip the article down to a base foundation and rebuild it than delete it completely.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 06:27, 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 keep. Though the sources should be used in the article and not just added in the references section :) (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen Terror

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A short-lived British extreme metal band. While Mitch Harris' other projects like Meathook Seed, Righteous Pigs etc. yielded reliable sources, Unseen Terror did not. They are not notable for Wikipedia. The sources presented in the article are not notable or independent (that interview could be the only semi-reliable source, however, it is not available), so we are left with the site of their record label (not independent) and Spirit of Metal (unreliable database that can be edited by anyone). I also did a Google search and the results were the following: other unreliable databases like Discogs and Metal Archives, stuff like Facebook, Amazon, Spotify, Last.fm and the like which are also not acceptable for sourcing, shops where you can buy their shirts/decals etc, blogs, lyrics websites and stuff which contains the words "unseen" and "terror" but that's it. Their Allmusic page only lists their discography. There are several pages which contain album reviews or interviews, but they are (unfortunately) blogs. I am surprised that this band slipped past the attention of notable media, since Napalm Death are clearly notable and like I said, Mitch's other side projects have reliable sources. Unseen Terror however, seems like a band that made no waves when they were active, and certainly not now. They have an article on five other wikis as well, but the sourcing is also problematic there. So I think this band is not notable.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect? very thorough WP:BEFORE. WP:BAND, criterion 6, does say that there may be notability for "an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians": I wonder if that justifies redirecting (to a footnote?) at either Shane Embury or Mick Harris? Otherwise Delete, as per nom.Ingratis (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ingratis:: Yeah, a redirect is a good idea. This band can be mentioned in the articles of these musicians, but I don't think it deserves its stand-alone article.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable via releases, Peel Sessions, notable members, and coverage, even if it isn't currently cited in the article. --Michig (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig:: I am sorry, but where's the coverage?

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as found additional book and web coverage such as this, this, and this, that can be used for referenced rewriting of the article so that it passes WP:GNG and WP:V, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306:: Well I don't know. The book did not open for me so I don't know about that. While MetalSucks is a reliable site, Unseen Terror is covered only in a few basic sentences as part of a list. And isn't Metal Underground a non-reliable source? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The book coverage is at least a page and could be more, Metal Underground is not listed as an unreliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, has a full staff and ten years or so history, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306:: Oh, ok then. I will add these sources to the article. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:25, 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! 06:48, 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 delete. The arguments for delete have been made with reference to policies and guidelines, and I am seeing detailed analysis of how particular sources do not meet those requirements. The keep arguments on the other hand have tended to merely assert the company is notable without detailed argument. Where specific sources have been put forward there has been a failure to explain, with reference to guidelines, how they meet the requirements, and the claims have been refuted in detail. SpinningSpark 00:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Rail Services

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

Does not meet notability for companies. This is a relatively small company, that owns rolling stock (railroad cars) that is rented out/leased to railways. Sourcing is the article is companieshouse, the company itself, and two short items on railexpress describing rental deals. I was unable to find much more on this company. Eostrix (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am trying to assume good faith, can I just double-check that there is no COI in requesting the deletion of this active spot-hire company, as it seems a bot odd that other companies of this type are listed - and this article is nominated for deletion within two minutes of creation. Neith-Nabu (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have COI regarding Eastern Rail Services or UK railways generally. I got to this article from Wikipedia:New pages patrol and assessed it against Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I nominated it 18 minutes after creation. The sources in the article do not establish notability, and I spent some time in searching for more sources prior to nominating.--Eostrix (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the confirmation. With this relating to a company in competition with other such companies who are already included in this encyclopedia I felt it was essential that a specific statement to that effect was needed over and above assuming it to be the case.

Although I'm not at all attached to this company or page, it has been created as a referenced stub article (under the provision for the creation of such pages - although flagged before tagged as such), with external refences, for the sake of completion of scope of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. This is a company that provides rolling stock to main line companies (as referenced) and heritage lines (as referenced). Sources for references are reputable, and, I believe, for the scale of the article are within boundaries. Neith-Nabu (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) requires significant coverage in multiple independent+reliable+secondary sources (WP:SIRS). None of the sources in the article at this time fulfill that. Companieshouse is not significant nor secondary. The company's website is not independent. The two railway express items are in a trade publication, are probably copies of PR, and are routine/standard transaction announcements. I haven't been able to find much more than what is in the article, and this sort of coverage is not sufficient for companies. If other spot-hire companies exhibit a similar level of coverage, perhaps they should be deleted as well.--Eostrix (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that you said you are not familiar with railway pages, but railway news publications are always used as sources for railway pages. Neith-Nabu (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can use them as a source, but the two railway express items are routine/standard transaction announcements. They don't count for WP:SIRS.--Eostrix (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe you can and that they are reports in secondary, reliable sources. So, as this is another circular inclusionist/deletionist debate that isn't going to lead anywhere, I suggest that we leave it at that and let others create a consensus. Neith-Nabu (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "SIRS" link is pretty rich. It says if a source is "in doubt" it is "better to exclude it". Lol. In AfD, most sources are in "doubt" by someone. Such is the nature of AfD. The mere existence of someone's doubt is not reason alone to delete. The doubt has to be reasonably explained and have support from others. -- GreenC 13:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Eostrix saying that the source is "in doubt". He's saying that routine announcements (such as "new deal just signed" or "quarterly results") are not regarded as significant. The discussion should more correctly be whether the article is based on a routine announcement or not. Perhaps the author/journalist investigated and discovered these details or was informed by a third party. If you disagree with SIRS then you should argue for change at its Talk page rather than here. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, small article, with scope for improvement. Was able to find mentions in 4 separate secondary publications relatively quickly. Appears the nominators' search didn't extend beyond Google, sigh. Hopldoele (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, short article about rail services company, already sourced from limited number of reliable third-party sources, and with scope to develop and improve article in future. Neith-Nabu (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep; granted most sources stated are sorta notable, it needs more stable sources for it to be regarded as noteworthy. Its a good first start however. Nightfury 16:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most train company news will be in specialist publications, as unless there is bad service or an accident this would not be in national press. The other rolling stock companies listed on Wikipedia have used the same publications as independent references. User talk:Davidstewartharvey 13:02, 3 June 2020

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check: I realize there are railroad fans out there, and that some PR items have been added to the article, however all the sources we have in the article at the moment do not meet WP:SIRS - being primary or routine transactions in railway trade press. As a reality check, I did look in companies house: [32]. According to the company's latest annual report (30 June 2019, filed 31 March 2020), it has assets to the tune of 283,866 pounds (page 3), it meets a section 477 reporting exemption for small companies (page 4, requirements: [33]), and has ad average of 3 employees in 2018 and an average 1 employee in 2017 (page 6). This company does not appear to do much - it buys very old railroad stock and then rents it out - almost purely financial and on a small scale. Given this state of affairs, it is unlikely that there are in-depth, independent, reliable, secondary sources covering this very small company.--Eostrix (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most articles are of no interest to most people, but if they are only of interest to a small percentage of readers and properly cited, don't see the problem. There are thousands of articles on what many would consider non-notable subjects. The two articles you added are fairly niche and not likely to attract the attention of most readers. Not a reason to delete though. Hopldoele (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The publications are more for enthusiasts than for trade. The two references with online links are routine and insignificant coverage; I don't know if the sources without online links are better. Peter James (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems that most of the Keep !voters are highlighting the "reliable", "secondary", "independent publications" attributes of the references and totally ignoring the requirements for significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The references here are either entirely based on announcements (No Independent Content, fails ORGIND) or are run-of-the-mill extracts from Companies House. Doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria for notability. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query - are these now kept open until lobbying for negative votes can be accomplished? Neith-Nabu (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response Infinitely more helpful if you addressed the point I've made? Can you provide me with just *one* single reference that meets the criteria for notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 10:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That has already been done by others. Neith-Nabu (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thanks for at least replying. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per WP:NTS. In addition as other editors have stated: WP:NEXIST. Lightburst (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't meet NTS. The do not run rail services. It is not a major rail route or rail line. And it is not a train station. They are leasing the sidings (formerly overgrown with vegetation) to the side of Great Yarmouth railway station where they are storing old railway stock they purchase. This company buys old railway kit, stores it, and rents it out to railway services (both commercial and heritage lines). The operation, in total, employed 3 people in 2019 (per their annual report).--Eostrix (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Came here to say the same thing. NTS has no standing as a guideline and even if it did, this topic company does not meet the criteria as it doesn't provide transportation services. It is a supplier of "rolling stock" .. i.e. mainly carraiges. It is a supplier to the industry. You might as well measure "Tetley's Tea" against NTS since it is also a supplier to the rail industry. Also, taking you up on WP:NEXIST, please link to the best three sources you believe meets the criteria for notability because so far, the Keep !voters are all a bit vague on which guidelines/sources they are relying on for this topic. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you find that the subject does not meet the WP:NTS guideline, that is ok, because it does meet another guidelines for notability. We allow articles when a subject has met our GNG - and this subject meets ~~WP:BASIC~~ WP:GNG. As other editors have stated the article has non-primary WP:RSs and the article can be improved, making it WP:IMPERFECT. AfD is not clean up, and we serve out readers with such articles. Lightburst (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the acronyms you are linking to?! While Corporate personhood is a concept, it does not apply to Wikipedia policy in WP:BASIC (subsection in Wikipedia:Notability (people)). For corporations, such as this company, there is a separate guideline: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The analog to BASIC in this guideline is WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIRS. Not a single source has been presented here that meets SIRS. All we have here is copies of the corporation's PR/announcements, the corporation itself, and companieshouse. Not a single source here meets: Significant+Independent+Reliable+Secondary that is required for corporations. As for our readership, WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTYELLOW, WP:NOTPRESSRELEASE applies.--Eostrix (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You understand that I mean GNG and have stated that in my answer. You have made a common error in thinking that WP:N in addition to another guideline must be met. I will highlight the relevant portion of our notability guideline for you:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

so there are not multiple hurdles for this subject. Just WP:N or one of the guidlelines you have cited. Apologies, I have wasted far too much time bantering about the notability of this subject. My time is better spent editing, and if I find time to improve this article i will do so. Lightburst (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to WP:NOTADVERTISING/WP:NOTPRESSRELEASE, WP:N explicitly states in WP:SNG: "Note that in addition to providing criteria for establishing notability, some SNGs also add additional restrictions on what types of coverage can be considered for notability purposes. For example, the SNG for companies and organizations specifies a very strict set of criteria for sources being considered".--Eostrix (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be clear what has just happened admin Spartaz closed this Afd with the comment "The result is delete". I challenged the lack of explanation on the close here: [34]. The closer responded with: [35] and seems to have silently re-opened the WP:AFD. (I do with people would leave a note or do a relist when this has happened rather than a silent re-open, otherwise peoples have to do forensics to work out whats going on). That said I welcome the re-open and reversal of close actions. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interesting that someone would ignore the pretty clear consensus to keep and act as though this were their own private web site. If we had gatekeepers like these when we first started creating Wikipedia, the page would never have survived. What a shame Wikipedia is infested with them now. Yes, this is not a helpful comment, but I felt the need to register my contempt for certain type of people using Wikipedia for their own ego-boosts. Neith-Nabu (talk)

@Neith-Nabu The problem was not necessary the result but the failure to detailing the reasoning of arriving at the result which I would have expected in this case. In generally I would have expected the nom. as an NPP to have notability tagged the article, but its a mute point. To some degree you may have baited the nom., and they have responsed by shouting in bold all over the AfD which makes their arguments a pain to read. The cites have been poorly marked as to which require registration which is an issue. I remain unclear if this is totally separate from the Mid-Norfolk Railway but suspect it is to make a merge disruptive/undue; its now a different shape and would need bursting out. Its an article that is far easier to have around as if I want to ask about "eastern rail services" (e.g. who provided these air-braked coaches for the preservation event) then I've got some kind of answer. Also, Neith-Nabu, as you asked the nom about a coi can you confirm here you do not have a direct coi with ERS.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly confirm that I categorically have no interest or involvement with ERS. If I have baited the OP, then I half-heartedly apologise - but as OSD I will respond in kind to what I experience, and I don't think he has needed any encouragement to simply repeat the same comment again and again... For the record, this is a railway service company that, to my understanding, is nothing to do with the Mid-Norfolk Railway charitable trust, so placing this content there would be a non-starter in terms of accurate content. Neith-Nabu (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ultimately WP's better with the article than without it. While its a company is ultimately a product/service and thats usually what gets notice. If a good merge target I'd go for that, but merging too early is usually a starter. Bumfrey will probably be ok as source if I access it sunday, though the scribd link needs binning.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This has just been closed and re-opened again per history. Please leave this for an experienced admin to relist with advisory comments or close with comments. I say this because I am strongly of the belief any close/re-open should be visible without resulting to viewing history. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a very good chance that a closing admin will once again Delete this topic, reason being, if Keep !voters continue to ignore the points made by the Delete !voters on the lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Since this AfD has now been reopened, take it as an opportunity to provide new references (or justify the current ones by rebutting the arguments above). HighKing⁺⁺ 21:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict): Probably one of the better points made, and the point that could and probally should have usefully been made on a WP:RELIST after the re-open(ings). Unfortunately it was inappropriate for you or I as participants or potential participants to do such a relist. And if the original closer had made those points I would not have made a challenge to the closer. (From the closers comment on his talk page I was actually prepping a DRV until I eventually twigged the silent re-opening). Pragmatically it takes a fairly good argument to keep this, and I have thoughts on the bones of one, and given recent web hits we may be WP:TOOSOON, but frankly the embellishments of cites are not brilliant, nobody has presented a WP:THREE of any description, and until I get "off the road" and back to base Sun/Mon there's no danger of me looking at it; and even then I'm not sure I will because I have a lot of ball juggling. If it goes, and it probably will, I'll be requesting a draftification (via userification) if necessary (and I'll end up grumpy, troublesome, recusing from anti-vandlism and anti-sock work and letting others do some more of that) because some of the content will likely be re-entering mainspace at some point in some form. (Post edit conflict): No real issues if moved to draft if noone has presented a WP:THREE. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I want to point out WP:THREE is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. WP:GNG There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Djm-leighpark is not saying that 3 sources are needed - rather that Keep !voters here should put forward their THREE best sources that they believe meets the criteria for establishing notability. Also, WP:NCORP is the applicable guideline and WP:MULTSOURCES deals with the question on the number of sources required. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. If there is an issue with finding or verifying sources to support inclusion, then this can remain in draft space until that work is done. BD2412 T 22:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
COIN discussion, please see: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Eastern Rail Services.--Eostrix (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is not one single reference on this article that speaks to WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. BEFORE shows nothing better. WP:NOTDIR also applies. John from Idegon (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete- I thought this would be a keep for sure, but after inspecting the sources both in and out of the article I have to agree with John from Idegon and HighKing. Reyk _YO! 18:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Theres been a lot of WP:VAGUEWAVE stuff on this right from the nom. initially totally ignoring resources that are not online web text link. Unfortunately no one with access to those has provided any quotable details. If removed it will Wikipedia will prove useless at answering the question "What is Eastern Rail Services about?". Small isn't an issue if its doing something unique, and if it were not unique we'd bundle them into a combined issue. ERS's concentration on (mainline registered) rolling stock is somewhat unique as far as I am aware. But we have sufficient. The (Bumfrey, Steward, 2020) is RS for some but not all details; and shows the prominence of the new sidings. (Russell, 2018) does not appear like a press release and the information would have been gathered by information. One mans trivia is important to another, and thats all over Wikipedia and makes it work. "The Eastern Rail Services acquires Sleeper Mark 2s Today's Railways UK issue 207 March 2019 page 69" looks significant by the other magazines with its implications (I assume) of possible sleeper charter work. The ORR exemption is a forerunner of something that ought to come, but perhaps at present is WP:CRYSTAL & WP:TOOSOON. For those wanting a jigsaw or otherwise of the new sidings its here:[36]. Probably the biggest concern here is possible harrassment to the extent someone outed from the COIN, which is pretty serious, and I and the nominator may be held under investigation for that. My rule of thumb would be if you re-open an AfD then relist it formally, don't just pretend it never happened, even if it was for a 60 seconds.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for demonstrating this is a Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) failure, as none of the sources you point out are WP:SIRS, namely:
1. Russel - [37] - a transaction reported in a trade magazine - is not significant, and is probably derived from a company release and is therefore not independent and primary.
2. Eastern Rail Services acquires Sleeper Mark 2s Today's Railways UK issue 207 March 2019 page 69 - same as above.
3. Bumfrey, Steward, 2020 - 2:46-2:49 in audio - is a 3-minute audio interview with one of the managers of the company on local radio. As such it is primary and not independent. It also isn't significant, and is reliable only for what the comp*any claims about itself.
Wikipedia has set stringent sourcing requirements to establish notability of commercial companies to avoid promotion of business interests and to avoid being a directory.--Eostrix (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are back to the old statement of what one says is significant and one says isn't. Rail isn't a trade express isn't a trade magazine, and it doesn't much matter if it isn't, and it show obvious signs of investigation rather than a re-joggesd press release. The interview is primary for some stuff but WP:RS for others. The " Eastern Rail Services acquires Sleeper Mark 2s Today's Railways UK issue 207 March 2019 page 69" ... I haven't seen the article but the acquisition of that form of stock is significant.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), as you are arguing against established policy. Deal announcements are primary. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Secondary sources explicitly states that "interviews by executives" are primary. And that's even without addressing the quality and significance/independence of the sources (a 3 minute segment on local radio, a trade magaizine which per WP:ORGIND: Trade publications must be used with great care. While feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. This is because businesses often use these publications to increase their visibility.).--Eostrix (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a deal announcement. Descriptive physical visible stuff is happening. In essence Wikipedia is here to serve peoples encyclopedic interests, and if peoples interests are railways so be it. What interests one doesn't interest another. And yes, we do use trade magaizines with great care. Articles like this are part of the rich fabric that is Wikipedia and enables swinging from article to article and are the lead also for newbie editors to contribure bits.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no independent sources, only press releases and self-published material. This is a small ROSCO with a dozen carriages and a Gronk by the looks of it, so that's not a big surprise. Guy (help!) 11:43, 22 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. Academic Challenger (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeSabla, California

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

This one is a bit of a mess. The location given in GNIS is that of Camp deSabla, a campground established for the amusement of PGE employees, or at least used by them now. The "Hupp" whose name previously graced the spot was, according to this history of Butte County, a Mrs. Hupp who started a resort which was the location of the post office. I can't tell whether it was the predecessor of the camp or of another local venue; there are two buildings at the location below the dam where the name also gets applied, but these appear to have to do with the dam; the powerhouse, confusingly, is way off to the west, fed by a long penstock. The upshot is, in spite of the single word "town" in the placenames book, I can't find any evidence that there was a town here, ever. Maybe the dam/powerhouse is notable, but that's a different article. Mangoe (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nearest city of any size to De Sabla is Chico, California, and the Chico newspaper (Chico Enterprise-Record) refers to De Sabla as a populated place regularly, it clearly appears to be an unincorporated community known by that name.[38]. This 1953 USGS map shows De Sabla at an intersection with a small cluster of buildings, the powerhouse off to the west.[39].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm, now we have a weird problem, in that, if there really was (emphasis was, because there isn't now) a town there, GNIS has the wrong location, because their location is that of the camp. I can't read but two of the articles (paywall), and missed being able to read where the man's residence actually was. That said, I'm increasingly having issues with interpreting locale references as implying that the locales are towns. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It think it has always been an unincorporated community, not a real town, referring to an area on what now is also the northern reaches of Magalia, which is also an unincorporated community. As for the the missing person in 2007, his address is not disclosed in the articles, it just refers to him disappearing "from his De Sabla residence." I've now hit the "max article" paywall for that newspaper too. The California place name book does call it a "town" [40], which seems maybe generous but not uncommon for the Western United States, but I don't see us wanting to delete this based on what I'm finding.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have been an actual community with a post office. Meets GEOLAND. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:31, 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.

DeSabla, California

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete, with sentiment in the discussion leaning more in favor of keeping. While it is true that the pre-season is only receiving media attention because it is ongoing, the same could be said of the season itself. The ultimate question is whether reliable sources exist providing substantial coverage of the subject, and in this regard, those favoring the retention of the article appear to be sufficiently supported. BD2412 T 23:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Formula One pre-season testing

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

We have never dedicated articles to pre-season testing. This subject isn't that notable. Don't see what's so special about 2020 pre-season testing im comparison to previous years, that justifies dedicating a special article. What's worth nothing about this can be mentioned in the season article or if only really relevant to them the articles on the cars and the drivers. T v x1 13:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My thoughts are that it is a well sourced article, which is about a notable subject. The nominator states, "We have never dedicated articles to pre-season testing." ...WP:OTHER would not be a reason to delete. We have room for such articles. WP:NOTPAPER. We also have time to redirect if we later determine that this article is not notable WP:CHEAP Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why determine notability later? We can easily do that now as well.T v x1 14:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My own determination is that this subject is notable. My point is there is time WP:NORUSH and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS may change. Sorry for the confusing !vote rational. Lightburst (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notable enough for a standalone article? I'm not convinced of that. The used sources seem to fall under WP:ROUTINE. And it's not so that if these article is deleted that automatically all information on 2020 pre-season testing is deleted from the entirety of Wikipedia.T v x1 16:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't have articles about sports pre-seasons in any form, plain and simple; nobody won anything, records aren't kept, and this has a bunch of jargon the average reader is incredibly confused to read. This is cruft. Nate • (chatter) 18:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the article (From reading here, I think I have a vote, apologies if I'm mistaken). I think pre-season testing is notable for a few reasons. It is the first time that the new season's cars will run, and gives a good indication of the relative performance of different teams. It attracts significant media attention as part of the build-up to a new season. There were many other sources that I could have used. It is possibly the first time that drivers will have driven for their new teams. As pre-season testing is limited now by the FIA, I think the sanctioned test is more of an "event" than it previously was: all teams attend and all teams work hard to use the limited track-time available. F1 fans, e.g., on forums such as f1technical, follow the timings closely and discuss testing at length. As it is less constrained than qualifying, it often produces some of the fastest laps ever on the circuit. Of course, no points are won, so it is not as noteworthy as the season. I considered adding a section to the season page, but I think that that page is very concise and focused. I do not think that 2020 is particularly noteworthy (though one could argue that the delay to the season start due to the covid-19 pandemic makes it marginally more noteworthy as the only running of the cars before the summer) and I had planned to do some other recent seasons, though I think the quantity and quality of references may degrade quickly as one goes backwards in time. I don't think this article is overly technical for the mostly likely consumers: people with more than a passing interest in Formula One. I'm willing to hear that some information may fall under WP:ROUTINE, but I was also conscious of not creating a Stub/Start. I'm still learning the thresholds here and was quite happy to get a WP:C-class. I appreciate the feedback, positive and negative. AshSIreland (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: AshSIreland (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AFD. [reply]

Your arguments actually describe exactly why it shouldn't be kept. As you point out, this is really only relevant to Formula One fans. Which is not our principal audience. As for the lap-time argument, free practice sessions during the grand prix weekends are equally little constraint and have a very similar potential. Moreover your claim about the track records isn't even true. The current outright track record for the circuit in question was actually set during qualifying of the 2019 Spanish Grand Prix and not during a pre-season test.T v x1 10:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. A7V2 (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing the link to Formula One Wikiproject. It looks like exactly what I was hoping existed somewhere. Indeed, I probably should have started there, and would have had I known about it. However, I don't see any mention of pre-season testing there, only season page formats. I'm sorry if you were offended by the way that I have proceeded. My goal, which I think we share, is to improve and expand the content on the site. I will pick off some smaller and less potentially controversial edits in future, if I get the time and energy. Wrt lap times, I think you may have mis-read my sentence: I only say Bottas has the three fastest laps on the circuit, and I note explicitly that the lap in pre-season testing was slower than the previous year's pole position time.AshSIreland (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but also need articles for other years). Agreed that 2020 is not particularly more notable than any other year but I think there is generally a notability case for pre-season testing in respect of each season. It will take someone time to create an article for each season and I agree a sensible approach would be to start with 2020 and work backwards. On notability, it is a well reported on sporting event (BBC dedicates a live fee to testing (see as example https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/formula1/51562641)). On the comment that no other pre-season gets coverage, there are numerous articles on pre-season friendly football tournaments (see this category which includes a number of them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Association_football_friendly_trophies)Tracland (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would kindly want to request you NOT to start creating these sort of articles on all seasons. At the very least you should discuss this at the Formula One Wikiproject first. General consensus there is that pre-season testing isn't very notable in itself and certainly to such an extent that it merits a stand-alone article and certainly not for every single year. None of the arguments provided here so far prove that this subject is notable enough to merit a standalone article. Whatever needs to be mentioned can be mentioned in due manner in the season article. What is being described in this article is purely WP:ROUTINE. Some teams drivers went to a circuit for a couple of test, set some lap times and covered some mileage. Nothing special happened whatsoever. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a Formula One fansite.T v x1 10:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, agreed that the creation of further articles should be subject to consensus with the relevant wiki project where possible but I support you being bold and creating this article. As an aside, I'm not particular a F1 fan but when reading up on the current season I found the information in this article to be useful, relevant and well sourced. My view remains that pre-season testing gets plenty of media coverage, is relevant to understanding each season and can be well sourced so would continue to recommend this is not deleted. Tracland (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one is requesting that every mention whatsoever of pre-season testing is removed from Wikipedia entirely. The question is merely whether it should have a dedicated article. It can be equally be covered somewhere else in due manner as part of the bigger story.T v x1 14:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pre-season testing is not notable, only extreme F1 fans are even remotely interested in it, and the results e.g. best times are often completely misleading and worthless due to e.g. different tyres, weather, fuel loads. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is well written and with lots of information, much more complete then most race events articles (not precisely F1 but from other categories) that are just a bunch of tables. Being the first article of this kind or not being important for this user or that user, seems irrelevant. Its a F1 event, and although it isn't a GP, and so there is no winner, its very important for the season itself, as you can see vy the worldwide coverage and the amount of information written about. The article meets the General notability guidelines, has depth of coverage and a great diversity of sources, so this answer to the AfD.Rpo.castro (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is very well written and contains the fastest lap of each driver, which in pre-season testing is not easy to find. I dont think "We have never done an article on pre-season testing before" is not an solid argument, why can't we do something new? More and more people are getting interested in F1 and having this kind of information gives people a small information about the rankings of the teams, before the season start. Styyx (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT.T v x1 11:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Joseph2302. MWright96 (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AshSIreland and others. Pre-season testing is generally an event that gathers a lot of media coverage, mostly due to the fact that this is the first time we see the new cars run (which is a BI deal in F1).Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 01:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only WP:ROUTINE coverage.T v x1 10:23, 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! 06:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination does not give a reason to delete. There are plenty of sources showing that the topic is notable and here's another one. Perhaps this phase of the season is getting more attention because of the lack of races this year. Deal with it per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is written good, but it doesn't pass notability criteria, yes the subject has a lot of media coverage, but it is clearly that not all the things covered in media should be covered in encyclopedia. Do you see any articles about training in other sport? Corvus tristis (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not that your question matters to the discussion but the answer is yes. 2018–19 NBL pre-season for example. The media coverage from F1 testing is beyond routine media coverage.Rpo.castro (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison will be correct only if during the testing we had races, NBL pre-season at least have games (something that at least have a competition element), not an analogue of free practice sessions which we aren't cover much either. Corvus tristis (talk)

Its non competitive. Its training matches. Its pre-season, like in F1 or other sport: as it says its to prepare the new season and you have much more new information and in this pre-season tests in F1. The coverage in very depth and worldwide. Calling pre-season tests as "free-practice" is just a biased POV.Rpo.castro (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-season NBL games are competitive, they want to win. In Formula One they don't, teams simply don't care if they set the fastest lap time because no-one tries to set the best lap time. And you can't really gain any information from pre-season testing because there are so many factors the viewer is inaware of: fuel, ballast, engine setting etc. I have to agree that pre-season is comparible to practice sessions, if anything testing is less notable.
SSSB (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pre-season testing may recieve wide press atention while it is ongoing but this is simply because of the hype that comes with seeing the new cars/drivers being driven/driving for the first. But pre-season testing has no long-term notability (mostly because it doesn't tell you anything). WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS apply here.
SSSB (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've done a source evaluation of all the sources in the article, and they don't demonstrate significant coverage:
- [41] - good source, but as it says, testing times are misleading
- [42] - decent write up about it
- [43] - decent write up
- [44], [45], [46] - just results lists
- [47]- just dates for the testing
- [48], [49] - really about McLaren & COVID in general, with small mention of testing
- [50] , [51], [52], [53] - live tickers, just because the live tickers exist, it doesn't make the event notable. It was February and not much sport is on, so having a live ticker isn't extraordinary coverage
- [54] - is about 2019 testing, not 2020
- [55] - is about 2012 testing, not 2020
- [56] - about testing in general, not 2020 (written in 2019)
- [57] - not about 2020 testing, and not sure if even reliable source
- [58] - about Mercedes Dual Axis steering, focus of the article is not the testing event
So all in all, not notable enough in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:36, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seton Tuning

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

Two line article with no citations to support the claim of notability. Second sentence isn't even about the company, but about the owner. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Unsourced since 2008! Nope. Mccapra (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just had a quick look online and Seton are a team that has been in British 600 Superstock for some time (2008 earliest I found with just a quick google) also competed in endurance racing in UK and at least one endurance race in Belgium. Needs work. User talk:Davidstewartharvey 17:21, 3 June 2020

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. A7V2 (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No valid reason given for deletion by nom or Mccapra. I recently created the Phil Seton redirect so the article is about both the team and it's namesake original driver and founder. I believe Phil Seton should meet WP:NSPORT having won a British Supersport Championship. ~Kvng (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I spent a bit of time sourcing the article and arranging sections. Please have a look at the improvements. I believe the racing team is notable per the WP:RS and based on their notable riders. They also compete in the BSB which is a notable series. Lightburst (talk) 15:41, 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! 06:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There are five pages (many many articles) with links to news reports about this organization here. Easily meets WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:57, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Leder

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

Fails WP:NSOLDIER, was not a general-equivalent and the Air Medal is not a sufficiently prominent decoration. Otherwise fails WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG as there is not in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. The only coverage of him I could find is a two paragraph obit in a smallish paper. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article cites military records as well as two news articles on his life and death. It uses his military records and citation discussing his contributions in a major battle, which does quality under the WP:NSOLDIER criteria, specifically criteria 4. The article cross references with multiple articles that tie him to a number of other articles showing the contributions in the broader spectrum of WWII pacific campaign. brykeller (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple mentions in secondary sources about the Battle of Santa Cruz Islands and the USS Enterprise add up to passing the bar of GNG. For Hank Leder, For Leder and Wildcats. Kges1901 (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where there's enough about him to pass GNG. 1 2 3 4 5 6 and others are in relation to something he said ("Tallyho, nine o'clock down."). Other passing mentions include searching the sea, flying and becoming disoriented, romping like a chew toy. There may be a case to mentioning him in the context of the battle, but I certainly don't see enough coverage for a stand-alone article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, the combination of mentions in multiple secondary sources (and that's just those that can be seen on gbooks preview) is enough to clear the bar. While Leder would be insignificant later in the war, the fact that there were comparatively few US pilots in the PTO at this stage of the war who were decorated and had three aerial victories makes him more notable than otherwise. In addition, the report of the crash was carried by AP and in multiple newspapers as a result even during a period when air accidents were frequent due to the expansion of military aviation training. Kges1901 (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't satisfy any of the criteria of WP:SOLDIER and lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does satisfy WP:SOLDIER under criteria 4 of People. "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign." The article is a result of much research and learning about the Battle of Santa Cruz Islands, it's importance in history, the heroic efforts of the Grim Reapers Air Group in defending the USS Enterprise and the USS Chicago and Leder's role in that campaign. brykeller (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that in any way satisfies #4 of WP:SOLDIER. The rest of the arguments advanced are Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looked in Lundstrom, The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign and found a dozen mentions. I feel that there is enough about him to warrant inclusion under WP:SOLDIER. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. There's enough out there. Bearian (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Rose Foundation

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, all available coverage in independent sources is primary announcements of events sponsored by the subject. I checked several search engines as well as Newspapers.com _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Room for improvement, not deletion – I understand the notion that's being raised about strength of references, but I believe there are other alternatives to deleting this page. From what I've read Blue Rose Foundation is a noteworthy organization and has drawn in support from several high profile influencers in California for the last 6 years. I'd recommend potentially adjusting the class of the article to a Stub, so that the Wikipedia community can continue to build the article as new sources become available.--Copeland.powell (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:37, 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! 06:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While laudable, the foundation's activities don't seem to rise to enough notability for an encyclopedia article. --Lockley (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, or draftify. There appears to be sufficient reporting on this entity to meet the WP:GNG. A "Blue Rose Foundation" apparently existed in the 1970s, and it is unclear whether these are connected entities, or perhaps whether the current entity is named or modeled after the earlier one. BD2412 T 23:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to clarify what I probably should have spelled out in my nomination statement: based on a Newspapers.com search, there appear to be several different groups that share this name, most of which are significantly older than the 2014 foundation date of the subject of this discussion. Based on my search, I don't believe that these organizations have anything in common; most of the older coverage is about organization(s) focusing on aid to mentally disabled adults, whereas this organization's self-declared focus is education access for children of low-income families. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:33, 18 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. While it seemed hard to decide at first, the relist revealed a majority 'keep'. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto riots

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

Several reasons for deletion, which broadly fall under verifiability (WP:V) and and neutral point of view (WP:NPOV):

The term 'Ghetto Riots' is not in common use by any reliable contemporary historians, as far as I can tell. All the sources I've found which reference this term are from the period in which it was occurring and just after (the 1968-1971 range). I have not been able to find any contemporary sources that reference 'ghetto riots' or any comparable name for this series of events. In fact, I haven't found any indication that this particular series of riots should be regarded separately from the Civil Rights Movement in general.
This article covers a topic that is covered much more effectively by other pages, such as 'Mass racial violence in the United States' and 'Civil rights movement.' Both of those pages cover this period in greater detail, more effectively describe and link to the events discussed in this article, and do a better job of contextualizing riots within other historical events occurring at the time. This page isn't adding anything to our understanding of this topic.
There are a variety of issues with neutral point of view. The best examples of this are in the Introduction and Background sections, which make a variety of unsubstantiated assertions. The name of the article itself is also debatable, given the controversial connotations of the word 'ghetto,' and the fact that the term 'ghetto riots' is not used by any contemporary historians. Of course, these impartiality issues by themselves aren't cause to delete the page, but in conjunction with the other issues listed, I think it makes more sense to just delete it than to try and repair it.

In short, this article uses a term that is no longer in use for a series of events which are well-explained elsewhere, and has overarching POV issues. It should be deleted.

This is my first time nominating an article for deletion, so apologies in advance if I'm not following the right process here. Thanks! Coffeespoons (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Coffeespoons (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coffeespoons (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coffeespoons (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coffeespoons (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No problem Coffeespoons, I don't really know the proper deletion process either. I'll add my two cents. There are modern scholars and commentators that refer to this period as the "ghetto violence of the 1960s" or more often the "ghetto rebellions". You are right that the specific term "ghetto riots" I've found to be mostly used by scholars in the 1960s and 70s. I'll drop some links for the modern usage of "ghetto rebellions". I do recognize that this phenomenon is separate (although related) to the civil rights movement. While the civil rights movement was a long mostly non violent organized protest movement for desegregation, these riots were spontaneous and unorganized clashes in American cities. I think issues of the article's naming and neutrality are real and can be fixed. I think we should also expand and add info that describes more about this unique phenomenon in American history. This page has some problems, but I'd rather see it fixed than deleted.Mangokeylime (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, this is a content fork of other, better articles that do not have the same WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV problems. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The use of the term "ghetto" is thoroughly covered in both the sources cited in the article and those cited by Mangokeylime. The specific term "ghetto riots" may not be specifically used in the literature, as a scholarly consensus is absent and is not meant to be a set name like a battle in a war, but it is a descriptor of a string of related events that, per Mangokeylime's source, "turned them from episodic outbreaks of discontent into a force that transformed U.S. politics." You're right that it is not separate from the rest of the Civil Rights Movement, but it is distinct, characterized by the same tactics, time period, similar locations, and caused by the same material conditions, and so I don't think it can be accurately described as just "mass violence." Would we delete all of the articles about medieval Peasant Rebellions to a more general article about "mass violence"? I would think not. You talk about claims being unsubstantiated, so name them. Additionally, it is a useful content fork that helps organize a series of multiple related events through its table and helps readers understand why they're related by being a standalone article. Ultimately, I don't believe a deletion is warranted. Ashleyisvegan (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The riots were a real, historical event. Removing the page for them would seem to imply that they either weren't historically relevant, or that they didn't happen at all. If you have real concerns about the tone/neutrality of this page, then the page should be revised to reflect those concerns. Surely, deleting the page would have the opposite effect? It certainly isn't neutral to erase history.

Yoshmaster (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename and probably refactor, maybe 1960s urban unrest in the United States. A number of sources speak of a distinct period from 1964-68. This appears to be a notable topic, and could benefit from more modern scholarship. There is a recent book-length treatment from Cambridge University Press in 2018 that appears to reference a number of other quality sources.--Pharos (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it is reasonable to suppose that the timing of the deletion motion may be related to the Killing of George Floyd and subsequent (now)-current events. The article has multiple sources, refers to notable real events of civil unrest, and is reasonably sectioned. In my view, wholesale deletion is not the answer here-in one sense, the fact of our considering the article right now is some indication of its relevance. Echoing Pharos above, I think what's warranted is a PAGE MOVE, a straightforward process to re-title the thing into its specific American, 20th century context. "Ghetto riots" is unspecific. (Which "ghettoes"? Which country? Which historical period?) MinnesotanUser (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the current title was chosen to differentiate the riots from the Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War and the various other things mentioned at Counterculture of the 1960s. One possibility is to name the article after the category, Category:African-American riots in the United States. Is the deletion request really about the title though? Nemo 22:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:African-American riots in the United States, which shows just how frequently these occurred. Most of these articles refer th=o them as race riots and not Ghetto riots. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- This is currently a poor article on an important subject. I would have expected us to have an article on it already. If not, this might make the beginnings of one. We cannot redirect an article to a category; and its main article is List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States, which is a general list covering many kinds of event. Perhaps Race riots in the United States in the 1960s. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. largely for the reasons mentioned by MinnesotanUser. (Though the article needs work.)--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 02:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The time period that this article covers (1964-1968) accurately describes a period where there were an unusually large number of race riots. If keeping the article's name is impossible, it should at least be renamed. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, none of the nom's rationales for deletion hold water. Taking them in order;

Our criterion for naming articles is not "in common use by any reliable contemporary historians", rather, it is WP:COMMONNAME. This was certainly the common name in the 60s and 70s. Here is a book with the phrase in the title, and another with that as a chapter heading. More are not hard to find. The claim that historians no longer use the phrase is dubious at best. This 1999 paper includes the snippet "Smith and Hawkins (1973), for example, reviewed some early studies of citizen attitudes toward police. Many of these were conducted following ghetto riots in the 1960s." This 1993 paper has the phrase in its title, and even more recently, this 2016 book uses the phrase in several places.
The claim that Mass racial violence in the United States covers this better and in context is ridiculous. The nominated article is about a specific episode in US history in the 1960s. The Mass racial... article covers everything from pre-Civil War slave revolts, through Native American massacres, to anti-Catholic violence. I find it difficult to accept the article binds all these into a single contextual whole. The 1960s riots are given only one paragraph, hardly better coverage than a full article can do.
Lack of NPOV is cited, but the only explicit complaint seems to be the term ghetto riots. There is a vague handwave to the background section, but that is fully cited. I haven't checked those particular sources, but I saw very similar passages in the sources I did look at while doing my own searches. Articles are not usually deleted for POV problems unless they are so severe that there is nothing salvagable in the page. In any case, so far I see no case to answer on POV, and as the nom has admitted, such problems can be fixed by ordinary editing, as can the title of the page if editors think it is so offensive. SpinningSpark 18:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick look through newspapers.com tells me the term "ghetto riots" was indeed in wide circulation and was often followed by "...of the 1960s", so the article reaches the standard of, yes, this was an actual & notable thing. A quick look through wikipedia tells me the overall topic seems not to be covered elsewhere. These kinds of groupings of historical events can lead to bad habits like synthesis and OR and lazy generalizations if we're not careful, and the article needs some help, but it's worth keeping. --Lockley (talk) 02:17, 18 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 Palermo, California. Sandstein 10:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Grove, Butte County, California

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

From all I can determine, this is a more or less isolated subdivision which popped up in the 1950s, judging from the topos. Beyond that, I can glean no information at all other than what's in the GNIS entry. To me, that's a perfect picture of non-notability. Mangoe (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Palermo, California, as this subdivision is within the borders of that CDP. Subdivisions aren't inherently notable, and I couldn't find any significant coverage. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 06:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palermo, as it is a neighborhood within the CDP. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:31, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thumak Chalat Ram Chandra

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. Even searching in Hindi, I could find songbooks that included the tune or sporadic local news mentioning a minor performance of the song, but no analysis of the song itself. The one source cited fails WP:SPS. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Song has been embedded in the history of Indian devotional songs, and has been sung by many world renowned Indian singers like Lata Mangeshkar , Anup Jalota , Purshottam Das Jalota which can be searched on Google by doing search using song name and singer name. Google search for this song under book search also returns results with books published back in 1950s as well. This article truly deserves a place in Wikipedia and should not be deleted in my opinion. As I am Wikipedia contributor but not very savvy so I am not exactly sure how can i prove that this song is legitimate. But I would truly appreciate help from others in proving it. Thank you very much. Tannaray68 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's talked about in India News, Zee News and The Indian Listener. I believe these sources, including the one indicated in the article, are reliable and make the article good enough to pass WP:GNG. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 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 CSD G5 (LTA sock) and G4. DMacks (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh Dattatraya Gosavi

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

Out of all the non-IMDB references, only 1 has what I would consider significant coverage for this person specifically (The films may meet GNG, though I doubt it). Due to this, I would argue that it doesn't meet WP:GNG. I know there was a previous AfD for this article, but I'm not sure how similar that one was to this one. Username⁶⁸⁹² 04:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Username⁶⁸⁹² 04:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Username⁶⁸⁹² 04:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect there are more sources in Hindi and/or Marathi. I can't read Devanagari script so I can't search for those sources myself. Withholding judgement until someone familiar with those languages checks to see if sources exist. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 08:51, 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 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) 09:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shubham Singh (Entrepreneur)

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

Sources insufficient to prove significant independent coverage in reliable sources. MB 04:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MB 04:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MB, Thank you for giving your feedback about the page. The page should be considered for deletion if it doesn't provide any reliable source about the person. In the article, I did mention a reading from an online newspaper. I have also provided the CrunchBase profile of the person. I hope you consider this as reliable sources. If not, please let me know. I will provide more sources so as to back this page. Thanks again.Chandranshu Gupta 06:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankajraman (talk • contribs) [reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:07, 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 redirect to Ayala Corporation. Black Kite (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AC Health

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

The content of the article reads more like an advertisement. Avalerion V 19:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Avalerion V 19:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ayala Corporation: This subsidiary's various operations are already adequately summarised under Ayala_Corporation#Social_infrastructure, without this article's detail and superlatives. There is routine coverage of various announcements but I am not seeing evidence of notability distinct from the parent company, so a redirect seems a reasonable option. (If so, the former redirect of Ayala Health to the parent company [59] should also be restored.) AllyD (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ayala Corporation: Per AllyD. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:59, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollow Reed

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Passing mention in sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a historical business no longer operating. It passes WP:COMPANY significant coverage with "ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization" after 1981 closing with recent, ongoing coverage from multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources including statewide. BrikDuk (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This was not a strict vegetarian restaurant. They served fish and lobster. I added a reference to the article that clarified this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple reliable sources indicate this restaurant's notability. Andrew³²⁷ 14:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewman327: Could you list some of those sources? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:57, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Raphel High

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

Notability per WP:AUTHOR seems doubtful. All references in the article are either her personal website, or online bookstores. The article's main contributor, K.yardena, is a single-purpose account. All in all too many red flags to ignore. bender235 (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment looks like a partial copy-paste from: https://web.archive.org/web/20160407090252/http://www.moniqueraphelhigh.com/about-monique/ DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, point 3 of WP:NAUTHOR requires significant/well known work(s) that have been independently reviewed, library holdings of High's books (allbeit including ebooks), although first published in the 1980s, number in the 100s ie. The Four Winds of Heaven - 240 libraries, Encore - 160 libraries, The Eleventh Year - 150 libraries, The Keeper of the Walls - 200 libraries, Thy Father's House - 130 libraries, Between Two Worlds - 130 libraries, also, there are reviews by Kirkus of The Four Winds of Heaven, Encore, The Eleventh Year, The Keeper of the Walls, Thy Father's House, by Publishers Weekly Between Two Worlds, Thy Father's House. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 14:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' She is notable, and one of the book is well read. I've removed a chunk of the article due to copyvio. scope_creep^Talk 10:07, 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 speedy keep. Speedily keeping under WP:SK#2 This is likely a vexatious nomination, the 2nd from this user for this article, who has also previously this year twice nominated for deletion an article for one of the creators of this podcast. There are no votes to delete. (non-admin closure) gobonobo ⁺ ^c 04:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Scare (podcast)

AfDs for this article:

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

Eligibility. Not every tiny podcast deserves a Wiki. This article is self-promotional material that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Yellow-billed Loon (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep based upon the same arguments from the first nom. With comprehensive articles in The Telegraph and The Times, it easily passes WP:GNG. Jlevi (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jlevi, although some of these news articles seem to have a negative POV of the podcast. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 03:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep, this is now the fourth nomination for deletion this year of a Red Scare-related article from the same user who clearly as a personal grudge with one of the hosts. The previous nominations survived by considerable margins per WP:GNG. Its increasingly obvious that this user's concerns for "eligibility" cannot be taken seriously, and that these nominations are made simply for vandalism and disruption. Pinchofhope (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If what Pinchofhope claims is accurate then this entire AFD should be put down by an editor. No need to waste anyones time with bad faith nominations.★Trekker (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is accurate from my perspective. See also the recent history on Cumtown and Shane Gillis for similar behaviors. Jlevi (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case a possible ANI for Yellow-billed Loon may be in order.★Trekker (talk) 15:28, 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

College Publisher

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

Non-notable service provider for college newspapers, it is sourced only to a press release and two websites which are primary sources. It fails WP:GNG, and is also highly promotional. Article has been prodded in the past, which was declined by the article creator. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If there were a few reliable sources, this organization might meet requirements. But the lack of sourcing makes me lean delete. Andrew³²⁷ 14:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This organization might be providing valuable services to merit WP entry but there are no sources to support it. Google search returned results that are not related to the subject and this would make it difficult for any editor that may want to help establish its notability. Ugbedeg (talk) 6:21,16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IgniteXML

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

It was flagged as advertisement back in 2017 and clearly hasn't improved since Shushugah (talk) 23:07, 10 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 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:30, 10 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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11 Spam. This is exclusively -- relentlessly -- jargony promotional material with no sense of shame or self-awareness. Ugh. --Lockley (talk) 08:07, 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.

[1] Lyman, Rick (1998-12-31). "Mother of the Octuplets Goes Home to Recover". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-06-05.

[2] "CNN - Octuplets get names; dad gets unwanted publicity - December 23, 1998". web.archive.org. 2016-03-30. Retrieved 2020-06-05.

[3] "Help Pours In for Parents of Octuplets". Los Angeles Times. 1998-12-23. Retrieved 2020-06-05.

[4] NYTimes articles

[5] ttps://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/mollywood/250119/on-happy-mode.html

[6] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/kochi/krishna-sankars-kochaal-kicks-off-in-kochi/articleshow/72833455.cms

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]