Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 29

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henrich Akomolafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

promotional and non-notable.Probable paid editor rsponsible for a number of similar articles. The references look impressive, but they do not hold up: they are promotional interviews where the person speaks whatever he pleases--and, as can be seen from the titles and confirmed by looking at the text, some of them duplicate. The various annual Forbes "30 under 30" and similar lists are promotional gimmicks, and do not lead to notability DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — DGG, couldn’t have said it any better. The whole article is a promotional piece for a subject seeking a Wikipedia presence. Only one source appears to be reliable but they don’t discuss subject with significant coverage. Furthermore undisclosed paid editing might be a factor here as author of this article @Kojomo has two more of such articles on non notable “prominent” businessmen but both thankfully have been declined appropriately by the AFC process.Celestina007 (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - ordinarily I would try to argue the Guardian coverage is a good start, but it seems every single piece of independent coverage is tied solely to these rankings in Forbes, etc., not noting any particular notability beyond that. Perhaps a case of too soon, but either way delete. I also couldn't find other sources online to add to what is already on the page. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Celestina007 That two other articles I created got declined by the AFC process shouldnt mean I am a paid editor as I am not. It should be a case of not meeting the notability requirements which I have openly admitted to DGG but unfortunately I have not had it easy in getting advice and help on how to edit articles better. I know there are articles to read about the guidelines and process, which I have read and tried to adhere to. I enjoy the process of editing Wikipedia pages and I don't think not been successful in one should stop me from trying again.Kojomo (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject is the co-founder of a non-notable company. His only claim to notability is being listed on Forbes Africa's 30 under 30 list.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW. I specifically disagree that Forbes "30/30" lists provide notability; they are useful as a source, however, once notability has been established. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,I agree with DGG, the article is promotional. Alex-h (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result, even disregarding the dual keep comment made by Alan Islas, was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject is non-notable. As with various other articles created by the original author, the few sources used are primary sources and the article, while detailed, fails to establish actual notability of the subject. It's almost entirely original research. B.Rossow · talk 01:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. B.Rossow · talk 01:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. B.Rossow · talk 01:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there is a tiny bit of coverage out there, but most of it is not in-depth. A very deep search might turn up more. The main problem here is that, assuming those sources were found, his very weak notablity would at most sustain a very short article-- not the gigantic indulgent biography that we have here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He is a well known artist, curator and Native American activist in the American Southwest. In collection of the Hood Museum [1]. Unfortunately most of the museums in the Southwest do not have searchable online collection. I will keep looking. Netherzone (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment COPYVIO from his bio page [2] is the bigger problem. I just flagged it. I found many passing references in a database search. He was a member of the Indian Group of Seven so I think he has notability, but it has to be a TNT bc of the COPYVIO. --Theredproject (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's pretty simple: Joe Sanchez is an important artist in both Canada and in the US. He was also a Curator, then Director of the Indian American Institute of Arts in Santa Fe and has since retired. He is one of only two living members of the "Indian Group of Seven". His works have been shown in many public institutions and shows worldwide. Racist colonialists have been trying to erase First Nations people for hundreds of years, so attempts to erase his page come as no surprise. The truth is, people (and especially First Nations people) want to know his story, and will want to know his story years from now. Why don't we do our research before considering deleting the page of an important cultural figure? If we don't like the quality of the writing, why don't we improve it? He is still alive, why don't we interview him or fact check with him before it's too late?

Some easily found reading for those interested:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/book-on-indian-group-of-seven-show-wins-3-awards-1.3050184

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/professional-native-indian-artists-inc

https://lakelandconnect.net/tag/indian-group-of-seven/

https://www.albertanativenews.com/group-of-seven-catalogue-offers-readers-beauty-knowledge-insight-and-more/

https://windspeaker.com/news/windspeaker-news/indian-group-of-seven-artists-will-help-launch-permanent-exhibition

https://iaia.edu/

https://orecartgbp.weebly.com/indian-group-of-seven.html

[User:Misterlobat|Misterlobat]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterlobat (talk • contribs) 01:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

Please explain: what exactly is the problem with Primary Research? Last time I checked, primary sources were the best ones - no? [User:Misterlobat|Misterlobat]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterlobat (talk • contribs) 01:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. In 2007, somebody could rationally argue that primary sources are better than secondary sources for an encyclopedia, but in 2020, everybody knows we do not publish original research and we are not a free web host or place to publish research, and that as a charity Incorporated in the US, strictly enforce United States Copyright law. Substantively, one could argue this is a notable artist - he's exhibited om New York City and Santa Fe. But this is a mess. Having been around for over eight years, Misterlobat knows better. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Given that the Indian Group of Seven appears to be (I'm not an expert in this area) a notable group of Indigenous painters, and that all the other founding members also have articles to their names, I think that Joseph Sanchez would also merit his own, especially since there is independent coverage about him. Not trying be funny or anything, but it is the Indian Group of Seven, not six. However, I agree that the potential issues with original research and copyright infringement have to be fixed. Alan Islas (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Indian Group of Seven due to the lack of extensive coverage on Sanchez specifically. His career does seem to warrant mention in the larger topic, though. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested by the IP. Arguably, he passes WP:PROF as curator of a notable museum, to which I've visited. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Let me start by saying that I am an expert in Canadian First Nations art - this is my major area of study and interest. A bit of background: The Indian Group of Seven are Canadian national icons, and important groundbreaking artists - all seven of them - in fact there was an eighth member by the name of Bill Reid who is a huge figure in Canadian art and very important as well, but never officially showed with the group so is excluded from the so called "Indian Group of Seven" lexicon. I would encourage those not schooled in this area to read "7: Professional Native Indian Artists Inc. Group of Seven: JANVIER RAY MORRISSEAU ODJIG SANCHEZ BEARDY COBINESS" (a show catalog/book that won several awards) and all will become clear (notice the 7 at the beginning of the title). It is not up to Wikipedia authors who are not experts in this field to decide which artists from the group are important, and which are not - as an expert in this area I will thus assert, they are all important. Period. Other experts in this area, should one choose to seek them out whilst performing some primary research, would agree. A bit of history on this article: For the edification of Bearian and other interested parties, I (Misterlobat) started the page in 2009, which was originally a pretty simple, basic, matter of fact entry where one was desperately lacking - after that I pretty much left it to others to work on (please see article history for reference). In or around November 2016, a few massive edits were made by a "josephmsanchez" who now appears to be a defunct user. For all I know it was Joseph Sanchez himself, and based on the amount of detail, it may well have been - who knows - or possibly someone following the huge shows around that time. If any of the text was "lifted" from a non-referenced source, it certainly was not by me. If the article is a "mess" as asserted by Bearian (which in fact it may very well be by Wikipedia standards), then, those who know best how to clean it up, probably should since I believe (as do others) it is an important article about an important cultural figure in Canadian, US, and First Nations art. Disclaimer: I am by no means an expert at Wikipedia editing, and am learning as I go, so of course open to scrutiny and correction by those more schooled in the art of Wikipedia edits. As an aside: I have to admit, I find it laughable that using primary sources in Wikipedia is frowned upon - but hey, that's just one person's opinion coming from a scientific background with over 70 original scientific journal publications to his name. If it's the Wikipedia way, then so be it - rules are rules and made for a reason, which we should all abide by, even ones we disagree with. Please feel free to clean this article up so that it meets or exceeds Wikipedia standards. I caution those who think it should be deleted or merged into a massive, unwieldy Indian Group of Seven page. Big mistake.Misterlobat (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm new to WP and to the deletion process, so I went to WP:BIO to look for the notability criteria for people. I don't know what is the minimum number of sources needed to justify "significant coverage". I found 8 secondary sources that I believe to be reliable and independent and that focus on Sanchez. Most of these have pictures of Sanchez and/or his art. I did not include the several sources that merely mention him as part of the Indian Group of Seven. See links below, of course I do not consider this quick online search to be exhaustive:

http://www.native-art-in-canada.com/joesanchez.html

https://www.lakelandtoday.ca/lac-la-biche-news/indigenous-artists-joseph-sanchez-and-alex-janvier-attend-lac-la-biche-museum-opening-1909492

https://www.albertanativenews.com/joseph-sanchez-reflects-on-the-indian-group-of-seven-in-advance-of-edmonton-exhibitions/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/indian-group-seven-joseph-sanchez-1.4603977

https://edmontonjournal.com/entertainment/local-arts/native-group-of-seven-show-engages-the-past-present-and-future/

https://ammsa.com/publications/alberta-sweetgrass/7-professional-native-indian-artists-inc-makes-final-tour-stop-edmon

https://ammsa.com/publications/alberta-sweetgrass/group-seven-recognized-breaking-ground

https://www.alternativesjournal.ca/people-and-profiles/focusing-first-nations-art (This last one is a journal with subscription wall, but I had access through a library portal)

Incidently, the Alberta Teacher's Association includes this WP article being discussed for deletion in a list of teaching resources about the Indigenous Group of seven: https://teachers-ab.libguides.com/c.php?g=710500&p=5083224

From the additional criteria Joseph Sanchez most likely meets WP:PROF due to his curatorial career, as Bearian indicated. Finally, I believe he also meets WP:Artist because of his exhibitions and being part of museum collections, as Netherzone pointed to.

This is that last criteria: "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

Alan Islas (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject of this article is notable. The sources are out there, and simply need to be added to the article. The copyvio sections can be removed - easily. There is no need to delete or WP:TNT this article. It can be fixed, the notability is there. I suggest that those who found the sources add them to the article pronto, and those who found the copyvios remove them. I would do the copyvio removal, but for some reason, I cannot access the tool I use, which is Earwig's copyvio detector. If there is another tool available, please ping me, or post it on my talk page, and I will take care of the copyvios. The subject of the article is an important, notable Native American artist and curator. Netherzone (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added some sources (and removed one, due to broken link), in particular about exhibitions. Mentioned permanent collection at museum in Portage Collage, and Sanchez' role as chief curator. Added external links section with a couple of links. Alan Islas (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Islas I added three of the citations you listed above and a bit more content to the article. Netherzone (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have trimmed the article form 17K to 6K, seeing as it was a 92% match for copyvio.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions containing copyvio have now been suppressed by an admin. This is the last copyvio free version before the revdel.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am seeing the notability now that the fluff and copyvio is gone.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as revised. BD2412 T 03:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Canyon, Los Angeles County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Deprodded. No evidence of this being a "major feature" that meets GNG; most coverage of "Sand Canyon" is related to a different location East of Santa Clarita. –dlthewave ☎ 23:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 23:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 23:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The article says it is located east of Santa Clarita, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found the source of confusion. The article describes a Sand Valley in the San Gabriel Mountains, 7 miles East of Santa Clarita GNIS GMaps, but the coordinates point to a different Sand Valley 20 miles North of Santa Clarita GNIS GMaps. I didn't look closely at the location to the East in my WP:BEFORE search, but it's clearly the intended topic and we should change the coordinates to match it. –dlthewave ☎ 01:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It was what Sand Fire (2016) was named after; presumably it swept through this canyon. Better explanation/illustration/mapping of its geography would be fine, but it helps the other article and is not the same kind of thing, so merger would not make sense. --Doncram (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there is coverage included with the fire reporting and seems to be a relatively large feature, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom Comment This nomination was originally for a different Sand Canyon near the Antelope Valley. I changed the coordinates to match the Sand Canyon described in the article, which is associated with the fire, but I'm not entirely convinced that this one meets GNG either. The fire coverage is just a single event and only tangentially related to the canyon itself; it's possible for a notable event to occur in a non-notable place. –dlthewave ☎ 02:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The here-stated multiple instances of the name (are you really sure this is two places, not just one canyon 20 miles long?) means that having an article providing clarity/disambiguation/maybe _two_ articles is all the more important for readers. There are lots of mentions in media where a reader could likely arrive in Wikipedia wanting to know more:
  • April 26, 1950: "Purina cougar chow — OK. This is the final cattle saga. On this date, a mountain lion tore off half the hide of one of Roy Crocker’s prize Herefords on his Sand Canyon ranch." The Signal, Santa Clarita Valley
  • Los Angeles Times: "These are the latest coronavirus case numbers by community in L.A. County", recent article and many more, recent, similar ones
  • "What's open and closed this weekend: beaches, parks and trails in southern California I cannot access. But are there trails there? Then there will be countless mentions cumulatively

Those are just first few of many many hits. This is a needed article or pair of articles or whatever; i am not going further. --Doncram (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made a strong argument for keeping the Sand Canyon that's in the San Gabriel Mountains, but there just doesn't seem to be any coverage for the other one. A "not to be confused with" template should suffice. A quick glance at a topo map makes it clear that this is not one long canyon, and in case there was any doubt the GNIS entries also lists a distinct "source" and "mouth" for each one. –dlthewave ☎ 03:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dlthewave: Hi do you want to close this rather than having it drag on, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Doesn't bother anybody, interesting subject. I would keep it. TheImaCow (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen T. Chang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. RobP (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RobP (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of evidence on the page that he's notable, and his name is too common for a search to be productive. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Stephen Thomas Chang" and Weak keep We recently let Bollocks to Alton Towers pass AfD based on two media sources. Well, STC has two: https://www.salamanca24horas.com/texto-diario/mostrar/1645325/tomar-sol-ano-ultima-moda-entre-influencers and http://www.mangialibri.com/libri/la-vera-essenza-della-vita-sādhanā . Hence, a weak keep or delete both as non-notable.-CoronaEditor (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seriously? I thought personal bios got treated differently than other topics. How is a book article relevant? And, if I am wrong about that, is the criteria now just what was done in the past for any article? Then let me suggest using THIS article I wrote as the criteria... It was deleted (twice), even with 34 citations, including The Atlantic, People and the NYT. And by the way, there is only a single reference (not the two listed above - where did THOSE come from?) used in this article, and it is the subject's own book. And it is used only to support a single paragraph. I have never seen a bio article more in need of an AFD than this one. RobP (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing to see here. Authors are not by default Wikipedia notable. Sgerbic (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:Notability (people) and WP:Notability (academics). 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬 ^{𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮} 02:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per editors above. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hazlitt bibliography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

We've covered this ground before: Wikipedia is not for bibliographies, and this one is just incredibly complete--and that is the positive spin. Listing every individual article the man ever published is of interest only to specialists, very few specialists. There may well be another project that this will fit in nicely, but we are not it. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTDIR. In 2020, everybody knows we are not a web host for random information, nor are we a directory. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY, no issue with having Hazlitt's books only listed at Henry Hazlitt#Publications. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,Per above, contents put in Wikipedia should serve as encyclopedia WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY. Alex-h (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda. Consensus to delete POVFORK; creating redirect since it's an obvious search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmanananda Saraswati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is nothing notable about this man except for his murder. Falls under WP:1E. And there is even a dedicated article on the murder itself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. ProStop! (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom a clear case of WP:BLP1E .Please note there is already a article on his murder that is Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he's not notable outside of his article, and this page is a WP:POVFORK and WP:SOAP soap box. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 12:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ishq Mein Marjawan. Redirecting w/o merge tag because the subject article is unsourced. Content undeleted in history should anyone want to attempt to source & merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Raichand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication the fictional character is notable enough for its own article KylieTastic (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Ishq Mein Marjawan - Sigh... For whatever reason, Indian TV show articles never have coherent character descriptions. I think I've seen one in all my years. Instead, people just obsess about how each character is related to another character. The result, is that most Indian TV cast/character lists are pure garbage, containing convoluted information presented between slashes and excessive parentheticals. Details that summarise who the character is and what their role is in the series would intuitively belong in the article. Though I applaud the article creator's efforts, a stand-alone article is not justified. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ishq Mein Marjawan, the article is completely unsourced, and fails GNG and WP:PLOT, but I think that goes without saying. Honestly the article is written in such a poor manner that there is really nothing to merge to the main article, since that already suffers from a massively bloated and poorly written plot section that covers her more than sufficiently. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ishq Mein Marjawan. There's not much to merge since the current article is entirely unsourced. Pichpich (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Baqer al-Qazwini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject of this article is an Islamic scholar from a notable family of scholars and leaders, but notability is not inherited. At the age of 35 he is certainly not a notable Shia cleric, and he has only been running his own seminary for a couple of years. None of the sources look reliable and sourcing a bio to a letter in the Guardian really is a sign of desperation. There is nothing here to suggest notability so WP:TOOSOON applies. Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per nom. Notability not stablished. wikipedia is not a social network site! Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Even though I created this page, I now agree. At this point in his life, he probably isn't notable enough for wikipedia. Ibn Daud (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Him being young has nothing to do with his notability. He is the most known Shia speaker in the United States and has established his own seminary. All English-speaking Shia know him! Hadiarchami 04:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haidarchami (talk • contribs)
• Comment whether he is known or not does not help, and starting his own seminary does not make him notable either. If you can find reliable independent sources about him, that’s what we need. Mccapra (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, too soon. We have almost always deleted articles about younger academics. This is nothing new, and a change in consensus is highly unlikely. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hujjahseminary is not a reliable source.--Vitalpantaryan (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XYZ Maps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Maps Stats)

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

Article has been edited since nomination. See original article version.

This article fails WP:NCORP. Angryskies (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Unfortunately, unless some cartography trade industry news outlets are identified, there is insufficient suitable information available to support this article. I've added what I could find to date. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources in the article or in searches. One industry award for a dissolved company that had little apparent impact does not satisfy NCORP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshya Digital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable video game company MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:52, 29 April 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 April 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NCORP. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW - notability is not inherited from what games your employees did some coding for. Bearian (talk)
• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 12:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability to have a separate article. - The9Man ^(Talk) 08:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maine VegFest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A small, local food festival without multiple independent, in-depth sources covering the subject itself. User:Namiba 12:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This festival has been in operation for 15 years and gets press coverage every year. This discussion needs to be added to list of Animal-related deletion discussions. BrikDuk (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:EVENT. Length of routine coverage are not standards for inclusion.--User:Namiba 12:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of the event is significant coverage. Not passing mentions. The largest newspaper in Maine covers it every year. Coverage includes critical analysis of Maine VegFest. Example of critical analysis ^[1]. BrikDuk (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's an annual event being covered by the newspaper which is published in the same city as it occurs. Per WP:EVENT, this does not qualify as notable.--User:Namiba 17:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 12:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 12:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 12:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unfortuantly, have to agree with User:Namiba. As awesome as VegFest is, it's not notable for an encyclopedia entry. For reference, see WP:GEOSCOPE: "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable." The list of exceptions to this rule don't seem to apply here, as VegFest is only covered by domestic Maine sources, and has no regional impact that can be backed up with verifiable sources.ClaudeDavid (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @BrikDuk: If you have a chance, could you list, say, the three to five most compelling sources that would substantiate notability under WP:NEVENT? I'm seeing a lot of sources exist in the wild but every one that I've seen seems at least borderline ROUTINE, non-independent, etc. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This seems like a straight-forward application of WP:EVENT. Since all the coverage is local and/or routine, the notability guideline is not passed. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' with regret, but we have deleted the articles of many such local festivals. Bearian (talk)
• Comment. I'm pretty sure WP:EVENT doesn't apply to annual festivals. It's clear from the context that it's talking about things that happen once, like a wedding, a crime, or a sporting match. I don't know what the appropriate guideline is, but I don't think it's EVENT. pburka (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bibliomaniac15 22:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James E. Mumford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. He seems to have been well known locally but the coverage we have is all local and the accomplishments we can source are minor. There is in-depth coverage of him at this source but it's not very independent (published by his employer) and only one source. Despite searching I didn't find anything better. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. It doesn't seem like it should be deleted, seems that he has significant effect on field of music education, and he has notable students within the world of music. I have just spent some time now editing, and plan to keep editing this article, as there is much more significant information on him than was initially present in the article upon nomination for deletion. He also seems significant as a historical figure, given his upbringing, achievements, impact on others.--Gim0031 (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep - even after passing his legacy remains strong at the university and through his past students many of whom have gained notoriety doing what he taught them to do. He had a large lasting longstanding impact on the university beyond his facaulty. What is not strong however are the number of references to him outside the state of Indiana. But I'm willing to give that a pass based solely on the incredible impact he had as an ambasadoor for the university, a trailblazer in the community, and the number of quality sources and likely journal entries made of him at Indiana University - one of the largest institutions in north america.Grmike (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
• delete per nom. he can have a memorial page on the website of Indiana University. But definitely, no scientific merits for pass WP:ACADEMIC Ms4263nyu (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not seeing significant independent coverage of him that meets WP:GNG. Notability isn't inherited from having some notable students. Papaursa (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - whilst he is undoubtedly admired locally for his impact, and there is local coverage, this does not indicate notability for an international encyclopaedia. !keep voters have not presented coverage which indicates notability under WP:GNG. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spotify#Industry initiatives. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotify Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence for the notability of this new award . The one ref. given is a mere notice DGG ( talk ) 09:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant coverage of the subject of the article besides the two sources being used. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 06:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Spotify#Industry initiatives, which discusses having such awards. Perhaps update that section. BD2412 T 04:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to no reliable sources to demonstrate notability. As a separate editorial action I'm going to redirect it to List of colleges affiliated to the University of Kerala as it's mentioned there; but that's not as a result of any particular consensus to do so at this discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 16:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NSS College Nilamel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails to meet the notability guideline. Sources on the web are not reliable secondary sources Mopswade (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT, or redirect to Kerala University. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Montagu Youth Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, there aren't any non-primary sources on this topic. Article is unencyclopedic and also unsourced as well. Mopswade (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT and WP:MILL. "No expense was spared" on Jurassic Park, either. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as a non notable local community facility and as per WP:MILL Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This appears to be completely unsourced and fails to demonstrate that the facility has any notability. Dunarc (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a narrow but policy-supported consensus that the sources provided do not suffice to support notability for this subject. No prejudice against restoring to draft if further improvements can be made to overcome these objections. BD2412 T 01:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristel Kruustük (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable person, Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, even the mentioned company is not on Wikipedia. The business person is only locally "known", the Stanford link is a generic set of interviews done in Estonia to record and archive local lives of locals (notable and non-notable people). One startup person among dozens of thousands. Article wrote by only one editor with an excessive promoting tone. Userland12 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• She is the youngest Estonian female millionaire and definitely notable enough for English Wikipedia. There is nothing do debate about. Anyone who claims something else has not looked into the topic. Ivo (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notability has already been proven in the article, which is well sourced. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some other sources I found in a quick search: [3] in Forbes, [4] in VentureBeat, [5] in Äripäev. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I cannot fully access the sources, as most of them are in Estonian. But I just wanted to note that the Forbes article linked above by Pelmeen10 is a "contributor article" which is more like a blog than a magazine article; it does not suffice for notability. BenKuykendall (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not only it fails WP:PROMOTION but also fails WP:GNG. "Millionaire" is not enough to describe notability. According to List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_millionaires there are 10'000 millionaires in the country of the subject. Let's be honest, the company is nothing special (there are much bigger and notable companies that are not on Wikipedia). A local wood factory in Siberia can easily earn 1 million USD and may even have interviews in local newspapers or mentions in international websites but it doesn't mean it's worth for inclusion so the argument of money is pointless. The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity. On the outside sources, what we can see is PR organized by the subject's own company. Yes money can buy that, and you can pay to get articles written for you, but it doesn't make you notable. It's very visible by the promotional tone. For example the main source of the Wikipedia article is "Estonian World (press release) (blog)-Oct 27, 2016". No offense if but an article based on press releases and promotional interviews and guests posts, well that's PR and marketing, not encyclopedia content and therefore should be deleted if we don't want Wikipedia to become a PR garbage (especially when the notability is not established by repeated and independent sources). - Userland12 (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. PR and self-promotion are certainly valid concerns here, but I think this article just makes it over the GNG bar. I view the Forbes and VentureBeat sources more favorably than some of the other commentators above. The overall sourcing is not ideal, but I see it as just reliable and independent enough to meet our criteria.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL. How can she be a millionaire when she's in debt for $7M? Bearian (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable person whose company doesn't even have a page. Kori (@) 00:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 21:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kadeco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Government-owned LLCs are not automatically notable. It could be notable, and I see a few news mentions, but I don't see significant coverage. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TAPCO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, and has been tagged as such for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - other than source # 1, I don't see any in depth coverage. Please ping me if you find more. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Electro-Voice: An article with a history of promotional editing during the revived use of the name until 2011. The brief coverage at Electro-Voice seems sufficient and I am not seeing evidence that the later branding merits a distinct article. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that sufficient sources have now been added to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^talk 13:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rustam Sohrab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an non notable Hindi film that has not received any notable coverage. Article doesn't comply with WP:NOTE. Dellwood546 (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dellwood546 (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article already has a reliable source (The Hindu newspaper) - an in-depth article on the lead actress Suraiya for this film. Found at least 4 more sources that can be used to improve this article, hopefully tomorrow. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - pending the finding of more than one good source Spiderone 12:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:NFILM Spiderone 15:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Added 2 more reliable sources and 2 more external links today. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scavengers (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Upcoming game, yet unreleased. Fails notability MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neither the game nor its developer pass notability requirements. Barely any coverage on the internet beyond promotional videos/articles. Clear-cut case of WP:TOOSOON. Charmanderblue (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Craig (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable for anything. Sources are clearly sponsored sources, although only the AA source is marked as such [6]. The sources don't mention anything noteworthy that he has done, only that he is "successful". – Thjarkur (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete like the article in question, the sources are paid for spam. Praxidicae (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I took a look at the sources. However, all of them are either passing mentions and advertisements. Kori (@) 04:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT, WP:GNG, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:MILL. It is unclear what he had produced from the state of the current page. The only real source on the page seems to indicate he's some kind of marketing or sales person. If you can fix it, please do and then ping me. Nothing he has done so far is notable. The current information is using a charity as a web-host for some new work product. Producers of all kinds (music, computer software, films, etc.) and sales persons (marketing, sales, advertising, etc.) are considered run of the mill, unless there is very clear words and evidence otherwise, such as awards like an OBE or equivalent. Sorry. Again, get back to me if you can show otherwise. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 15:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article may need to be renamed to more accurately convey the limitations of its coverage. BD2412 T 03:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of comets bearing names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unfortunately this fails WP:LISTN: there isn't much coverage of named comets as a group separate from non-named ones. buidhe 18:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad. I find it interesting to view the comets that actually bear names of people. Avram25 (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. buidhe 18:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We have a list of numbered comets and so it is sensible to have a list of those with names too. Sources such as The Greatest Comets in History and the Atlas of Great Comets seem fine for this purpose. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Perfect valid list article. Blue links to most of the things on the list, so it aids in navigation, listing things that should logically be grouped together. Dream Focus 00:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. appropriate navigational article. , complementary to similar lists. DGG ( talk ) 10:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above discussion - useful navigation tool, clearly notable list, and does not do away with a category. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are some fundamental misunderstandings that have led to the keep votes. Lets remove them. The argument that we have a list of numbered comets so why not this? cannot be made here because all comets are numbered comets. There are no comets without numbers. For example take Halley's Comet, it is featured on the list with names, but if we read the lede there it says the designation is 1P/Halley. So this is the first misunderstanding that there are some named comets and some numbered comets. I invite editors to go through Naming of comets for further clarification. The second argument is that it aids in navigation. This is not true, rather it creates misunderstandings and readers get the impression that there are two kinds of naming traditions for comets, while there is essentially one. From this viewpoint the list can fall under WP:HOAX if viewed with enough criticism. The third is a semantic thing. The title of the list is List of comets bearing names. So what are other comets? Bearing no names? Even if there is a number attached to a comet (an that is not the case here, these are not asteroids), is that number not its name? Should there be a list called list of nameless comets? A list of comets bearing names should include all comets ever found but I digress. I invite User:Bearian,User:DGG, user:Andrew Davidson and other to reconsider. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not so. The list of numbered comets only lists periodic comets that have been seen more than once. See naming of comets for details of the various schemes. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Good point, P/1999 J6 for example is not a nameless comet. But I don't know how to call that kind of name: cryptic name? code name? Or how to call the name Halley's Comet - literal name? I just wanted a list of comets that have some non-cryptic names, I really can't find the right word for that, maybe someone with better English can help? Maybe "List of proper names of comets"? - Avram25 (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The full list of comets (with the exceptions of the ones mentioned by AD) have standard numbers. Numbers are one form of nomenclature. Non-standard names are another complementary form of nomenclature. I would not have thought readerswould confuse the two, but from the comments above, it seems that they do. That shouldn't affect keepingthe article--how totitle thearticle can bea separate discussion. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaushlendra Jha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Clearly fails GNG. It was a sure CSD but Phil Bridger contested. All the eight sources have bare mention of the subject as reporter or eyewitness of incidents. Given context doesn't prove notability. — GargAvinash ^talk 18:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — GargAvinash ^talk 18:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — GargAvinash ^talk 18:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we've been over this many times here at AfD, and a consensus has been that journalists and newscasters are not automatically notable because of whom they report on, absent truly extraordinary circumstances, such as Frost on Nixon or Pete Williams (journalist). There is a lack of significant coverage about this person. We have even deleted articles of journalists that have won local Emmy Awards, and proposed articles on some, such as Richard Bagala have been shot down. If consensus has changed, I would require a long discussion, like when we decided that certain new genres of music are notable. If anything, Wikipedians have become more deletionist as time has gone on. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 12:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As explained by Bearian. - The9Man ^(Talk) 08:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 21:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FlightReacts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Youtuber with no claim to fame whatsoever MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There was already an articles for deletion thing for FlightReacts and the article didn't get deleted. Sorry I'm somewhat new so my terminology is probably off. If he isn't notable for his YouTube channel he is also a popular rapper. Ericfood (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That had been a proposed deletion rather than a discussion. It doesn't appear the subject has gotten any independant coverage. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is mentioned in two articles about Stephen Curry acknowledging a meme about one of FlightReacts' catchphrases, I'll put those into the article. I'm trying to improve the article and prove that he is notable.Ericfood (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:OUTCOMES. There are no reliable sources in the article right now, thus there is a lack of significant coverage. You don't inherit notability because you were acknowledged in a meme; my brother Mike got 15 minutes of fame as "Awesome Dancing Guy". Recent AfDs have deleted articles of YouTubers with as many as 8 million subscribers. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis (YouTuber), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harsh Beniwal (YouTuber), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deji (YouTuber), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Smart (YouTuber) fpr recent examples. Bearian (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing to add from Bearian‘s analysis. A non notable BLP which has no substantial reliable sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Bird Vendor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can hardly find any results online aside from besides its own Wikipedia page, thus I do not think it meets the notability requirements (see WP:N); Please let me know if I did something wrong as this is my first time doing this Why? I Ask 17:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete interesting that this was created! However I could only find one source in a search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can find no additional sources besides that provided by ThatMontrealIP. Reads a lot like a school essay. Curiocurio (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, lack of WP:SIGCOV. I would not oppose a redirect to Hampton University Museum or other appropriate place. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, this appears to be an important example of wilson's art, in addition to being chosen by Emerging Infectious Diseases for one of their Journal covers (as brought out by ThatMontrealIP above) with a small but non trivial discussion/analysis of it, it was also chosen by the curator to be the cover illustration for the exhibition catalogue of The Art of Ellis Wilson, with the referenced mention of it in the artist's article (4th paragraph), its almost, but not quite there, in terms of wikinotablenes for a standalone, but a redirect/merge to a "Works" section in Ellis Wilson may be appropriate? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The cover image would mean little in terms of notability. Publishers of limited run and limited readership journals like the Emerging Infectious Diseases (journal) are thrilled to get whatever art they can for a cover, because very few academic journals have a budget for art.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitkub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Something is suspicious about this one. Articles from the one seemingly legit source look entirely like press releases. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete - and crypto blogs in there too. But mainly press releases and churnalism - is this the best that can be found even in local coverage? - David Gerard (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the considerable levels of commercial advocacy, if this one is deleted it should probably be salted - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Original draft was created by paid editor Serghiy Hrabarook, then cleaned up and published by TviziJJskos (a new editor with a few other contributions). Multiple draft versions had also previously been created and deleted. There's lots of news coverage in Thai, though as usual, the independence of the coverage is debatable. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is considered a company so must meet WP:NCORP by way of WP:ORGCRIT. While there are a lot of references, they are mainly trade publications, press releases, or unreliable sources. The sources that are reliable are more of less brief mentions or promotional which do not cover the company in-depth. Outside of that, it appears to me like another bitcoin related spam article. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - paid-for spam in a topic under general sanctions for extensive spamming. MER-C 14:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Suisse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article appears to be mainly WP:PROMO and does not seem to meet WP:GNG, because it doesn't look like there are multiple references that are independent, significant, reliable and secondary at the same time. It seems to be a lot of WP:REFBOMBING. Article can be kept if notability can be proved, but at this point I'm not convinced.

I did some research into various users contributing to the article discovered quite a few WP:SPA accounts:

• Special:Contributions/Androphilijaslobodna
• Special:Contributions/Circley
• Special:Contributions/HNS_Counselors_for_Bitcoin_Suisse_capo
• Special:Contributions/CarloatHNS4BS
• Special:Contributions/Pollux2018
• Special:Contributions/Mphorigin
• Special:Contributions/Btcs_nama
• Special:Contributions/Moongirl97
• Special:Contributions/Innovativo1
• Special:Contributions/Brandnewz

I think this is against the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.

Streepjescode (talk) 17:28, 29 April 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 April 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advert. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Note that most references are press releases, churnalism or non-reliable. There's a few reliable sources (e.g. [7], [8], [9]), but far from WP:ORGDEPTH from what I found so far. --MarioGom (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: If that's your conclusion, then please vote. Streepjescode (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Streepjescode, sure, I was waiting to have some more time for a deeper search. MarioGom (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: there is some WP:ROUTINE coverage at Finews.ch ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]), which could apparently meet WP:RS except for the Advertorials section. It is borderline regarding WP:GNG. I see this company quickly gaining notability if it really manages to get the banking license approved in Switzerland, but at the moment it does not seem to cut it. --MarioGom (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's been here years; it's an eternal WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete refbombed low-quality cryptocurrency promotional content - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Thank you to MarioGom for wading through the muck to highlight the RS, and I agree with the determination that these are not substantial, therefore subject fails WP:GNG. Pegnawl (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 relatively low participation, as well as per some commentary that does not take a specific stance one way or another regarding notability or lack thereof, and per open-ended statements that do not really say much in terms of the subject's encyclopedic worthiness relative to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caridad Asensio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Local hero, emphasis on local. The only national level reference is about her son, not herself. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator of the article, I made sure there was in-depth coverage of her from independent newspapers. The Sun-Sentinel, which has many pieces on her, is the main daily newspaper of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I realize the Florida Women's Hall of Fame probably isn't considered a "well-known and significant award or honor" but how does she not pass GNG? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If she is not known outside her own city, she is not notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, she has clearly received coverage from outside of her home city of Fort Lauderdale, such as here: [16] from Palm Beach County, and this: [17] from Fort Walton Beach, on the other side of the State, and this: [18] from Jacksonville. Coverage does not have to be national to establish notability, it just has to be from something other than one local newspaper which published a lot of articles on the same person. Clearly, the sources within the article demonstrate that, and cause this person to pass WP:GNG easily. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If the fact that the Caridad Center at Boynton Beach that she co-founded is "Florida's largest free clinic", is verified, then she has a decent claim to notability. I'm not convinced on the GNG argument as it stands with the present sources. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment She is quite notable in cuba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2019KB (talk • contribs) 08:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator has said "Local hero", she wasn't local hero. she was recognized across cuba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2019KB (talk • contribs) 08:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. When other editors are not buying into your argument then the argument is resolved against you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myles Jeffrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non notable actor, no evidence of substantial secondary sources online besides an out of date website from the 2000s, Pahiy (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are not the multiple reliable secondary sources to show notability. A bunch of minor parts do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Keep: There doesn't seem to be much recent coverage of the subject, but going back to the late-'90s/early-2000s, there are lots of newspaper hits which show potential WP:SIGCOV. I'm applying for a source to be clipped and will provide it soon. As for WP:NACTOR, the subject has had some decent roles which, I believe, pass the necessary threshold, and he also has some awards and nominations, which may support WP:ANYBIO. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/49206604/myles-jeffrey-vincennes-sun-commercial/. The article seemed far more in-depth via the preview. As I said above, there are a lot of hits at newspaper.com, but sifting through the mere mentions for non-trivial coverage will take more time. I'm happy to keep looking. There are also sources which verify his awards/nominations. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NACTOR and WP:MILL - his roles are too small; for example, he voiced a chimp in the Babe sequel. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: Upgrading my vote above on the basis of the subject's Young Artists Awards, which seem to be notable. Thus, WP:ANYBIO appears to be met. I'm applying now at WP:RX for some sources which verify his awards. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Sources verifying the subject's Young Artist Awards and his YoungStar Award: 1, 2, 3. Dflaw4 (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bearian and John Pack Lambert, do you believe WP:ANYBIO would be met on the basis of these awards? Dflaw4 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No opinion about whether he's notable or not, but right now, to our readers, this is a WP:BLP without reliable sources, and deletion is therefore required. Sandstein 10:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein, I've added one of the sources, so it is no longer a WP:BLP with no reliable sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Slapping a bare URL into the "external links" section is not only shoddy editing (that's not what external links are for, and links should be properly formatted), but it is also not the same thing as properly referencing a BLP article. Readers must be able to verify the important and/or controversial facts about a person through inline references (footnotes) accompanying the respective statements in the article. Until you are able to do that, you should stay far away from any BLP articles, or you may in fact face sanctions (WP:BLPDS). Sandstein 16:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein, if the article is kept, I will add the references properly. I only did it like this to placate your concerns vis-à-vis unreliably-sourced BLPs, and so that you can strike you vote given that it doesn't address the question of notability. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment receiving the award is not being coveraed at GNG levels so that is not enough to show notability, and one source is never enough to pass GNG and that is all we have at best adding to GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• John Pack Lambert, WP:ANYBIO doesn't require there to be significant coverage attaching to the award. But I have provided sources to verify that he won those awards above. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I’m not convinced that the additional sources above indicate notability, it seems too minor to me. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing administrator: The question of whether the subject's awards pass WP:ANYBIO has not yet been resolved. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation related to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Violates WP:COPYVIO since it was creating by parts of other articles without crediting to the original article. It is a WP:POVFORK of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India#Misinformation and discrimination, Misinformation_related_to_the_2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Country-specific (India) and others. Wikpedia is not a news channel and it is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Right now India is the only country which has this type of article, and it seems clear that this kind of POVFORK, if preserved, is likely going to encourage more POVFORKs. Tessaracter (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom CrazyBoy826 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We already know that not everyone had the correct information about the coronavirus. A separate country based article is unnecessary. Wareon (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia isn't for feeding one-off coverages of trivial occurrences. Azuredivay (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per all the above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above, probable candidate for speedy delete Spiderone 16:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article is way too specific and unnecessary. Kori (@) 17:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No valid arguments for deletion. There are two types of arguments for deletion. One type is that which says that the content of the article is fine, but it should exist on other venues. Like the Nom, who says that it is POV fork. What exactly is POV in the title? There is nothing but straight fact. If you think that some of the content is POV then AFD is not cleanup, if it is so much of a POV that it requires complete WP:TNT, I want to read some quotes that you deem irrecoverable. As for the fork part, editors are allowed to create content forks per WP:CFORK. Have you looked at the size of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India? It is above 9 thousand words and is almost WP:TOOBIG. Same with Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic which comes in at a whopping 15 thousand words. I think it is much better to have sepreate articles instead of sending a reader plodding through a hodgpodge of text in one huge article. Then there are the arguments who say that this content should not exist anywhere on wikipedia at all as per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:IINFO or perhaps WP:TRIVIAL. Long term coverage in reliable sources, tens of thousands of google hits on each subheading and the existence of Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic proves that this does not come under any of those deletion rationales. The information in this article in niether trivial nor random. Every single incident is related to the topic. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC) (edited to make it more concise) MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Now this is what I would as a typical WP:ILIKEIT !vote. Collection of trivial and random information to flesh out an unnecessary article is exactly why it needs deletion. You can write a blog if you feel strongly. Azuredivay (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Azuredivay You take any single sub-heading and you fill find more than 10 thousand google hits so calling this trivial is way off mark. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Redundant POVFORK. Wikipedia is not for collecting information only because it is verifiable. Srijanx22 (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete What kind of wierd hocus pocus of an article , if we start creating the possibility of all the imaginations going on, wiki would be a collection of imagination by certain "users" not encyclopedia, as per WP:NOTNEWS , WP:INDISCRIMINATE and most importantly WP:NOTRUMOR WP:SPECULATION . a delete is requiredShrikanthv (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Shrikanthv you are making two claims that are opposite to each other. WP:SPECULATION and WP:NOTNEWS, which ones is would you like as the true rationale for deletion? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Per User:MistyGraceWhite. Most of the content that is now claimed as being FORK was created by me for the original articles. Some content I created for Janata Curfew article were salvaged into 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India when the article was deleted. I reused the same content for creating this India specific article. If mentioning about the fork on the talk page solves the problem, I can easily do that. I don't understand how this becomes POVFORK : none of the respondents above who talked about POV have not mentioned what exactly is the POV they are talking about. I don't think that acknowledging that misinformation exists in the context of COVID-19 counts as POV. India being a large country with huge diversity, there could naturally be more misinformation circulating there than any other country, and such huge volume of misinformation merits the creation of a separate article. --Netha (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)— Note: Netha Hussain (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion,[19] and is a creator of this article. The diff provided does not show a canvass, it is according to WP:APPNOTE . User:Netha Hussain has already said that they are the creator of the article in their vote, including that is the note is, POINTY. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That means you simply don't understand what is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:POVFORK, even though you were the one who collected all possible information both related and unrelated to this subject without caring about WP:SYNTH, WP:COPYVIO and WP:ADVOCACY. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Srijanx22 WP:COPYVIO is not applicable here, either you have not read the policy or have not understood it, read it again, and again, and then again if possible. WP:SYNTH is about making connections where there are none, this page cannot be called as such as the information on the page is accurate and all of the links are about misinformation. You have misunderstood that policy as well. WP:ADVOCACY? How does that figure in this? The page is not about anything where anyone can have an opinion, it is a listicle type of page honestly. Misinfomration occured, here are the incidents. There is nothing on the page which could have contrasting opinions, it is not like abortion rights or stuff like that. I think you should read the policy pages you quoted once again. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with your personal attacks on users. This article is POVFORK created without attributing wikipedia pages where it copied content from. That violates WP:COPYVIO. You should already realize by now that this AfD is not worth WP:BADGERING every incoming participant. Wareon (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User talk:Wareon What is POV in the fork? The origianl pages are too large anyway. You can give your answer if you can. POV is a certain definable term, so you can point out what is POV in the page. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important content already exists on the pages linked by the nom. Creating a separate article based on that text is POVFORKING. Wareon (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wareon Those pages are too large and rules say that they should be forked. I think you are under the impression that pages can never be forked and anything new is a POVFORK. Being a new editor that is understandable. WP:CFORK gives the rules for forking and when forking should always be done. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For that you need consensus. Deceptively creating a new article without attributing the original pages is not how you CFORK. Wareon (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Wareon Deceptively? What does that mean? AFD is not cleanup, if the concern is that the page does not link to original pages you can do that with two edits and change your vote to keep. How about that? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How else would you define a POVFORK done without notifying anyone? Content exists where it should. WP:NOPAGE was written for a reason. Wareon (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ HAHAHAHAHAHAH. You think that people should notify others before creating a page? I have told you a number of times that the content where it presently exists is making a page too large. So it was split, and there are no opinions or points of view on this page, so there is no POV involved. Good reason for deletion right there, the creator did not tell anyone and just went ahead and created a page. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:2600:1004:B01E:280B:DD23:6623:E67B:B523 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ziaul Hoque Polash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article created by globally locked or blocked user for shockpuppetry/undisclosed paid editing, the topic is not notable enough. Most of the sources are talking about the tv serial or other things with trivial mention of the subject, Some of those sources even fail WP:RS. Topic fails every criteria under WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR and it just too soon. ~ Nahid ^Talk 16:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 16:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 16:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable person under wikipedia gidelines. I cannot find significant coverage of him. Article creator has already globally locked by editing.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete: I cannot evaluate the non-English sources, so I provide no opinion as regards WP:GNG. In terms of WP:NACTOR, though, I don't think the threshold has been met. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, promotional article & paid editing. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 18:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myka Meier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Clearly fails notability, most of the sources are either primary, videos, the remaining are not reliable. None of her books are best sellers, there is nothing where anyone can find what she is notable. All links are placed are placed so well that we are looking at reliable article but it is not. NO RS what so ever. Most of the articles created by this user are following the same trend. Manujaineshwar (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm sorry, how are the articles I've written "following a trend"? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think full articles in The Daily Telegraph [20], Southern Living [21], The Times [22], Yahoo! [23], and Evening Standard [24] are enough to establish notability. True, she is not a New York Times best selling author, but her book did sell out 24 hours after hitting the stands. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I must disagree with the nominator who said there were no reliable sources. Some of the sources are not reliable, but some are. Also, relatively few books are bestsellers and this is not an article about her books anyway. If you want to say she fails WP:NAUTHOR, then say so. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Willthacheerleader18 has found significant coverage of her in reliable sources so she passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 02:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: enough coverage in reliable sources.PamD 09:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Urgent Care Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This fails WP:NJOURNALS and seemingly WP:GNG as well, but there could be a valid merge target at Urgent Care Association. If that target isn't suitable, delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to fail WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG. Urgent Care Association does not appear to meet WP:ORG, lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. XVDC (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Obaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Only recorded appearance was in the King's Cup with Al-Nojoom, but the club was not in a WP:FPL at the time. PROD was removed by an IP without giving a reason. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 William Wei. Sandstein 18:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds Of My Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is about an album that was released today. When I first reviewed it, it was largely copyvio from the marketing material, and sourced only to a press release and iTunes; I draftified it and suggested to the author that they wait until the album clearly meets NALBUM and better sourcing exists, but they have republished in mainspace, with only YouTube videos from the album label as additional sources. I can't find any indication that it passes NALBUM; I also note with slight concern that its author has never once made an edit to any article that was not concerned with this artist. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Likely just WP:TOOSOON Redirect to William Wei as a plausible search term and until an article can be fully developed. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  A redirect to that target makes sense for me. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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