Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 August	13 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete. Already deleted by MER-C. (non-admin closure) jp×g 01:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Patkar (musician)

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

The subject of article lacks WP:NN. Being merely a Musical Artist doesn't prove his notability. The article does not cite any independent coverage in reliable sources. User:Donald j. Dk (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User Donald j. Dk has for no reason removed my PROD of the article replacing it with AfD. I have undone his edit. Less Unless (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. $Salvio$ 16:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Cox (screenwriter)

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

One (according to IMDB) co-screenwriter film credit isn't going to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non notable creator. FreeMePlease (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm John Cox (screenwriter) and I'm fine with my page being deleted. Zencato (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 16:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashur TV

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

Non-broadcast television channel with no mentions in reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 22:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 22:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 22:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the current sources are one dead link and one self-published source. A bit of web searching didn't find anything else particularly likely to satisfy the GNG, and the Arabic and Farsi pages don't seem to have any sources at all. --Slashme (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Star vehicle

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

Non notable, no sources, does not merit separate article. Zombiesturm (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: definitely needs vast improvement, but unless there is a concrete offer to incorporate the term elsewhere, the article should stay. Chunk5Darth (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe a merge discussion is appropriate for AFD. Let us stay on point, please. Zombiesturm (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is the next best thing when it's notable to retain the material when deleting an article. Chunk5Darth (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the first place, the article does already have a couple of sources, although they are currently listed under "External links" The concept of the star vehicle is certainly notable. Here are some books that discuss it as a marketing concept and, according to at least one writer, as a distinct genre of motion picture: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and cleanup and per topic notability.[7] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agro (company)

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

None of the references appear to meet the standards for WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV and I am unable to find any additional ones via search. Paradox society 16:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 16:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 16:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 17:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lacking the in-depth reliable secondary sources that it would need to be notability per WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability, clearly fails to pass WP:COMPANY. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Ellerman

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

apparent unsourced autobiography Szarka (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and apparently edited by the article subject. Mccapra (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Delete~~ It seems like a very well-written third-person resume to me. The only article I can find about him is are articles that he wrote, and a "[he] [argues] [this]" mention in this article. I also notifed ‎Davidellerman. Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 21:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks to be this person: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=mOltFLwAAAAJ? -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I reworked the article to avoid the WP:COPYVIO and WP:NOTCV issues and to source appropriately. In particular, I added 7 reviews of 3 books, which I think is a fairly clear pass of WP:NAUTHOR. His citation record also looks like it's probably strong enough for WP:NPROF. I'd appreciate it if others could watchlist this article against coi editors (Slovenia is a small country, and while I've never had any interaction with Ellerman, I suppose it's likely that I eventually might). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1, WP:AUTHOR, and the 15 published book reviews of 5 books now in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now passes WP:AUTHOR and is a case of WP:HEY. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all of the above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His Scholar profile shows he passes criteria 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 22:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transwiki to Wiktionary. Sandstein 08:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qalbi

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

Dictionary entry. No evidence that it is the name of a concept that has been written about. ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitionary SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 20:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitionary --Devokewater@ 23:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitionary Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki but "softly". In theory, an article could be written about this concept; see Sisu and Seny. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mevlana University Concept Design

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

Unsourced speculative piece about a building project that is almost certainly cancelled now the university is closed. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of available reliable sources to make sense of the article’s incomplete information. Fails WP:NGEO and WP:TOOSOON Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would say redirect to Mevlana University but this will never be a search term. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to suggest redirect, but I really do not see why anyone would search for this topic. Anything substantial about the design can be said on the article on the university itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirect to Mevlana University. Nika2020 (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I understand, this would've been the new campus/building of the university (??), but they couldn't build it because the university was shut down by the government. To be honest, even if it was built and operated, it still wouldn't be notable enough for a stand alone article. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 14:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though maybe we can merge it with Mevlana University. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 14:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW as it already seems clear that there is no consensus to delete. Note also that over 750,000 readers looked at this article yesterday. It's not a good look for there to be a large AfD template at the top of it. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 08:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Emhoff

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

A previous discussion redirected this, and independent of his wife's status his notability does not seem to have changed. DemonDays64 (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently notability standards become irrelevant when exciting things happen in the news. Emhoff is not any more notable today than he was last week, when he was just another run-of-the-mill attorney married to a U.S. Senator. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, he is not automatically notable because his wife might become Vice President. Is it that hard to wait until November? KidAd (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if the article isn't kept, the outcome of this should be redirect, not delete — if she is elected VP, he will likely get a lot more coverage to the point of being notable and thus the content of the article shouldn't be hard to restore. DemonDays64 (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have a compelling list of might-be-VP spouses: John Zaccaro, Todd Palin, Anne Holton, Elizabeth Edwards, and what they all have in common appears to be that they had independent careers which became notable by virtue of their spouse's campaign. You have a couple of unnotable spouses, e.g, Paul Ryan, Lloyd Bentsen but these appear to be spouses with no independent career KevinCuddeback (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why would we delete a well-written article that provides information to people who are seeking it? People want to know about all aspects of the life of the US vice-presidential Democratic Party nominee, so why would we delete an existing and well-sourced article on her husband? It's common sense to keep the article. The level of notability for this subject is potentially heightened considering the blurring of the political and personal in recent US elections (a development that exists even if we might bemoan it). Note that the article on Karen Pence was created on the day her spouse was announced as a VP nominee (July 15, 2016) and did not endure an AfD nomination. Surely we can have room for this article when we have articles on people and places with far less claim to notability. Moncrief (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's called notability. This guy is not notable on his own. Therefore, it should be redirected to Kamala Harris.

Comment: Please sign your comments. I'm aware of what notability is. In terms of the level of public awareness and exposure, being the spouse of a major-party US vice-presidential nominee is notable. Minds can differ on whether that is true, but I certainly think it is; hence my vote. Moncrief (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. *Obviously* the news changes his notability. Just look at the number of reliable sources that have published articles about him in the last 48 hours. Notability isn't a reward Wikipedians hand out for achievements, it's a reflection of how he's viewed by independent, reliable sources. Independent reliable sources have published a bunch of articles about him, so they consider him notable, which means he is notable. [[[User:Binarybits|Binarybits]] (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Kamala Harris this guy is not notable on his own.-Splinemath (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think we need a way to include perspectives of people outside ourselves. I suggest Google Trends, which shows that "Kamala Harris Husband" is roughly equal in searches to "Douglas Emhoff" [8] suggesting that people view him as independently namable and notable.KevinCuddeback (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets notability with significant coverage in reliable sources such as major American news outlets.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If John Zaccaro and Todd Palin have entries, Douglas Emhoff is every bit as notable, and will be scrutinized as a VP-Candidate Spouse for *exactly* the same reasons that John Zaccaro and Todd Palin were and ended up fully worthy of their entries KevinCuddeback (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. KidAd (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Douglas Emhoff easily fits the notability requirements for Wikipedia since he has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." See Wikipedia:Notability (people). These secondary sources cited in the article include newspapers, magazines, and news websites.Ungathering (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ungathering (talk • contribs) 19:56, August 12, 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Please sign your posts. You can do so by adding four tildes (~ x4) after your comment. Moncrief (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not convinced that this nomination is entirely neutral, as it was conveniently nominated the day after his wife was chosen as VP pick for one of the candidates for president; before there was time for the (inevitable) forthcoming coverage on Emhoff. Nevertheless, he in fact does meet notability criteria due to sigcov in multiple reliable sources. Meets GNG and BASIC. Netherzone (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable now his wife is running as VP. This is Paul (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all of the reasons listed above. And because I came here to find out more about him! And why is the AfD given as "Frank Underwood" on the page? I fixed it. --WiseWoman (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Frank Underwood" in the article was simple vandalism. Thanks for fixing it. TJRC (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a great deal of public interest in the man who is married to a candidate for Vice-President of the United States of America. I and others are coming here to find out more about him. The suggestion for deletion seems like political trolling, which is against Wikipedia rules. --BraverWoman (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Keep. ≈ Ebraver99 (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage of him in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per previous consensus, and not much has changed since, other than Emhoff is now the spouse of a candidate for a position. I'm not seeing any compelling arguments on the Keep side here, from a strong presence of WP:OTHERSTUFF, 'I came here to find this' (which isn't an argument against deletion in any sense), assuming bad faith and assuming notability due to coverage over the last 24 hours, which can definitely fall to WP:RECENTISM. Emhoff's notability seems to be inherited from his wife being the presumptive VP candidate - I feel like it's a case that we need to wait til November to see if he becomes the Second Lady (or whatever the official term is) until we can recreate this page, as per WP:CRYSTALBALL given his notability entirely hinges on a future event, otherwise he's just another unnotable Senate Spouse. ser! (let's discuss it). 00:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Karen Pence (Mrs. Mike Pence) was an elementary school teacher, but she has had a Wikipedia article since 15 July 2016 (about 4 months before the November 2016 election that elected Mike Pence Vice President). What's good for the gander is good for the goose. Mksword (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (again) — a lot of these arguments contradict WP:INVALIDBIO; a person is not notable solely because of their relationship to a notable person. He needs to have significant coverage distinguishing him as notable. DemonDays64 (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVALIDBIO says that a relationship doesn't confer notability "unless significant coverage can be found" on the subject. There's already been numerous profiles of him written published in reliable sources since Kamala was chosen and we can expect plenty more in the coming months. Binarybits (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the spouse of the democratic vice presidential nominee and could potentially be the 1st second gentleman in US history. This page is notable enough. Within 24 hours, his wikipedia page has received 100,000 views alone. Yeungkahchun (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems a no brainer. Even if there wasn't sufficient coverage now, wait 48 hours and there will be so what's the point? PAVA11 (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Douglas may become the first Second Gentleman of the United States. While the page has a great amount of room for expansion, it should not be deleted. PickleG13 (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Why would you delete this? He has received significant news coverage and clearly meets WP:GNG. I-82-I | TALK 02:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At this point meets WP:GNG. The selection of Kamala Harris has placed the subject in the public eye. --Enos733 (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Christian-Sigismund of Prussia

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

Only born after abolition of noble titles in Germany, mostly pro forma genealogical information or obscure family squabbles. PatGallacher (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,no indication of notability, there is no such country as Prussia any more and there are not any Princes of that non existent state.Smeat75 (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of indication of notability. Uncle of the businessman who owns 2/3 of Hohenzollern Castle is the main claim I can see, and that's not enough. —Kusma (t·c) 20:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG --Devokewater@ 14:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable member of a deposed royal family.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically a hoax: Prussia ceased to exist - and also ceased having princes - before he was born. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person isn't a prince and is not notable.★Trekker (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Consorts_of_nobility and WP:MILL - minor prince-ling and collateral relative of some royalty, he hasn't done anything to make himself notable: no charity work, nor a major scandal. Discussion of minor family squabbles is not the sex or corruption scandal that would garner significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 16:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of law colleges in Bangladesh

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

Unsourced and the Entire list are from unreliable private blog! 2A0A:A546:B0D7:0:9C13:6479:589E:DDF0 (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. As for my own opinion, I agree with nominator that sourcing is lacking, but I'll leave it to editors more experienced with these things to judge whether the list itself belongs here. --Finngall ^talk 17:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely contradicts WP:LISTN. Bvatsal61 (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a list of non-notable colleges; see WP:NOTDIR Spiderone 10:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to David N. Donihue. A redirect to the director's article--where the film is mentioned-- is suitable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Weathered Underground

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

Non notable film with no verifiable independent reviews found during search. Previous nomination resulted in delete. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've found approximately two potential sources. One is an article by Pocket Gamer that looks to be heavily based on a press release. I'd consider it usable, but it's not the strongest source since it gives off such strong PR vibes. The second is evidence of a review by FilmCritic.com on Rotten Tomatoes. AFAIK, this seems to have been run by AMC, but the website is long since gone and I don't see where AMC archived the reviews, so I can't really verify much of anything about it. It looks like the Wayback Machine has the site archived, but I'm honestly not going to go through umpteen pages to try to find a review that may or may not have been archived. Even with that, it's one article and a review. I'm not certain if that's really enough to make this a firm enough keep for me. I think that this should be mentioned in the director's article (which could use some editing for the massive PR fluff tone such as "The comic book inspired picture went on to become a small cult classic and is now shown as part of curriculum at many of the world's best film schools"), as I think that's a decent alternate option. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 16:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MC Hellshit & DJ Carhouse

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

Non-notable band! GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great band name. Unfortunately though I think they are not notable. Google results are the usual trash sources, the Allmusic page is blank, no evidence of notability aside from one of the members being a member of Boredoms which is a notable band. (Google results) It has no article on other Wikipedias. The article has been sitting here since 2007 without any sources. That problem could've been fixed if reliable sources would be available but unfortunately, no reliable sources are available. Not notable on its own but the title could stay as a redirect to Boredoms. I can't speak or read Japanese so I don't know if there are reliable sources in that language. The English name only brought junk sites like eBay, Discogs, Rateyourmusic, Youtube, Amazon, Musicbrainz, Google Play and the like. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't much of an article and I don't think they are notable either. BexBlack314 (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carl, Prince of Wied

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

Members of obscure former royal family which was deposed even before they were born. PatGallacher (talk) 16:18, 12 August 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 August 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion proposal also applies to Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince of Wied. PatGallacher (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles about these non notable people.Smeat75 (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince of Wied, delete Carl, Prince of Wied. The former was a noted entrepreneur, and the German Wikipedia's article shows significant coverage. The latter is on Wikipedia solely for the sake of genealogy. Surtsicna (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantive claim to notability. He is the current "holder" of a nonexistent hereditary title, and that's it. WP:NOTINHERITED. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Carl, Prince of Wied: He was the main titular head of the family of Wied. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC) + Keep - Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince of Wied: He was entrepreneur in a diverse range of industries and also the main titular head of the family of Wied. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Main titular head of the family" means nothing when there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, the main claim of notability (entrepreneur) is wholly unsourced (and for some reason appears in a section called "Prince of Wied", although his name has been Mr Prinz von Wied all his life), and the rest is just genealogy. WP:TNT necessary for a keep. —Kusma (t·c) 21:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per Oleryhlolsson. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the actual head of a dynastic family. User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Consorts_of_nobility doesn't apply. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant coverage, though? Surtsicna (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not a genealogical database and seemingly no substantive coverage. There doesn't appear to be anything notable this person has ever done (if his business career is notable, then I will adjust my vote, but as already noted, that seems currently unsourced). If kept, article should be substantially rewritten to not be in the style of an article about actual nobility, but rather to one about a normal person, as there legally is no Prince of Wied title to succeed to. SnowFire (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 12:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Carl, Comment on Friedrich Wilhelm. Carl's page cites ROUTINE obituary coverage and 3 genealogical directories. These do not establish notability per NOTINHERITED and INVALIDBIO. Friedrich Wilhelm's English page has 1 genealogy book and two self-published sources by decidedly non-expert bloggers. His German page is better, but the vast majority of its length is astonishingly excessive detail on company holdings and production parameters. It has 1 genealogy source; an economic newspaper cited 4 times that ran a series of press releases on "nobility as entrepreneurs"; the website of Beaumont Timber (which returns zero results for "Friedrich"); an article in the "Logging and Sawmilling Journal" about Beaumont Timber that also doesn't mention him; an entry in the "Home Yearbook of the Neuwied District" about Manrepos Castle; a detailed article on Neuwied Castle Park flood protection in a parks and rec-type website that only mentions "Prinzes zu Wied" in general (the only specific prince mentioned is Prinz Friedrich zu Wied (1872-1945)); an article about his death in the "County Homeland Yearbook" cited 3 times; and two obituaries released by Rhein-Zeitung on the same day. If editors who can read German evaluate those articles as RS and consider them sufficient coverage for GNG, then I would lean towards weak keep. JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITyphoon

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

Fails NSOFT, unremarkable app outside of the Philippines. No clear claim of significance, promotional. CatcherStorm ^talk 13:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 13:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 13:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

15:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 1 (namedrop) and 2 (even briefer namedrop in the Philippine Daily Inquirer) were all I could find. It exists, but it's not notable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not notable, as i never knew this application and i'm certain that this app is unknown in the countries that was affected by Pacific typhoons outside of Philippines. SMB99thx Email! 06:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lee Jackson

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

Has one possibly notable role (in Saved by the Bell) but that's it. Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Was made a redirect to Saved by the Bell cast list as an ATD years ago, I've no objection to that but feel deletion is probably clearer, as there is no information on the actor in that article, other than his name. Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as an actor or a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NACTOR with multiple prominent roles in notable productions as confirmed by reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 08:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Hmmmm … I can see why this has been in CAT:NN for 11 years. On the one hand, he was interviewed on ABC News (by their "pop" division; this was not breaking news). On the other hand, he is introduced in the video and in the caption as the brother of Jonathan Jackson. That's a consistent pattern in all the coverage I can turn up on him—he's an also-ran to his much more famous brother. Of course, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. But he's definitely mentioned alongside his brother, and has some independent treatment. He also apparently has a column in Modern Drummer, which I'd consider the "magazine of record" for American drummers. Which shows that he's considered important by a publication that ought to know. I think role in widely watched teen comedy + somewhat noteworthy drumming is enough to pass the threshold, but it's really borderline. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

15:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACTOR, with important roles in Saved by the Bell: The New Class and Bring It On Again. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ENT#1. Wm335td (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article passes WP:NALBUM as discussued. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10th Anniversary Live

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

The band are notable, so that is an WP:ATD. The DVD has some sources that indicate possible notability (see German and Russian Wikipedia articles) but there don't seem to be enough reviews in independent, reliable publications. Boleyn (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources in its German page are reliable: Metal1 and Vampster. I also found some more reliable sources which talk about the album: Blabbermouth, Wizard, Heavylaw, Arctic Metal, Power Metal and Wacken. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

15:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Superastig - there are sources/coverage in German to demonstrate notability. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ponderosa Park, California

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

In dealing with the subdivisions entered into GNIS from promotional maps, I missed this one. It's just another subdivision, seemingly built around 1990. Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Not legally recognized (no post office), only trivial coverage on newspapers.com and Google Books. Beware Pondorosa Parks in other counties, including a picnic area near Coloma. Cxbrx (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. A run-of-the-mill housing tract. Glendoremus (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mukteshwari Degree College, Monirampur

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL or WP:ORGCRIT. WP:BEFORE and article on /bn.wikipedia.org reveals no additional WP:RS // Timothy :: talk 05:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: Thanks for reminding me. The govt website is under construction this is why I was having problem to add. I at leat check this one the official govt website to list the college name. It's actually a stub page. Sorry that I forgot to add the sources before. A. Shohag 04:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this fails the notability guidelines due to the available sourcing either being primary or trivial coverage. So, as it is I don't see this being worth keeping. It's not like it can't be recreated if or when the sources are there to make it notable and warrant an article though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added more reasonable sources that verifies and supports its existence. But its unfortunate that the govt site is still under construction. I will add more information from that site. Thanks. and please check the article again. A. Shohag (ping_me||Talk) 14:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The bd.wikipedia page has a book as the reference could not get the details but that reference if can be added and substantially proofs it's notability the page can be kept, being a government college, I don't think it will be a big problem if it is kept. Msgelhorn (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Msgelhorn: The book was added before and though they deleted it. I didn't find anything in the web from that book that mentions the college, so I thought it's better to remove. If you think that it should need to be added then response. A. Shohag (ping_me||Talk) 06:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; not enough sources to show that the school is notable. Schools are no longer assumed to be notable just for existing.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wallachia#History. That the topic is notable is not in dispute. Consensus is that the content in the article is inferior in scope and reliable sourcing to what exists in the redirect target, and that a reader is better served by reading the existing section in the Wallachia article than an article which largely fails WP:V. There is no reason our editors can not re-build this article, probably preferably from scratch. I would recommend building in sandbox until such time as the new article is larger in scope than the History section, replete with reliable sources, but this last is a personal opinion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of Wallachia

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

The article lacks RS, it has been redirected (and reverted) twice to Wallachia#History, and WP:OR and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK both apply. There are also several spinoff articles about historic Wallachian uprisings, revolutions, and elections. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect, as per original wl (where the subject is treated, with other related articles linked in each proper subsection). (Rgvis (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
delete No sources, therefore not notable for WP. Should not have been created over a redirect. Denzil1963 (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Wallachia#History, as history is a substantial part of that article. In principle, that section might be summarised and the present text converted to a free-standing article, but this article has far too few references to be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am extremely surprised that such a dispute is taking place at all. The article about the area sketches in sections the history of the geographical area. This article is about the history of the political community, which undoubtedly existed from the late Middle Ages to the formation of Romania. This article does not deal at all and cannot affect, for example, prehistory in the field. The situation is similar with the article in English about Moldova. Moldova is a neighboring political community, but too often at war with Wallachia, and methodologically the history of Moldova is not analogous to that of Wallachia. An extensive article on the history of Moldova in English was created and in 2012 it was merged and is now a bulam. But there is such an article in Romanian and Turkish. However, this is not the case with the history of Transylvania. Transylvania entered Romania only 56 years later than Wallachia and Moldavia, but there is no longer a dispute. This is a double standard. Anyone who wishes is free to improve and supplement the article, but not to delete it by merging it, because the latter is outright censorship. Bodinski2 (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Wallachia#History. unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Wm335td (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think there are any problems here, we need editors to contribute with sources. If there's no sources which speak about history of Wallachia this fact should be discussed first on talk page because there are sources in the article and there are probably some other sources which exist. I came across some sources which mention Wallachia and how much they talked about history I cannot say now because I do not remember but I know that Wallachia and some events from history was mentioned. Mikola22 (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per nom. I admit when I saw the title of the AfD my gut reaction was "Are you kidding me?" given Wallachia's prominence and history. But the length and breadth of the Wallachia#History section is extensive (considerably more so than this one), outstanding, and probably would make B-class at least as a standalone article. This content fork is superfluous and not necessary, and I'm frankly somewhat baffled at the opposition. Have they looked at Wallachia#History? Beyond that, they haven't advanced any legitimate reason to prevent a redirect, beyond WP:ILIKEIT. Ravenswing 17:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Contra. This is an autonomous region from the late Middle Ages to modern times. Accordingly, the history of this area is a separate topic and should not be scattered in other articles such as the history of Romania or in the article presenting and explaining what this area is. 213.149.159.237 (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As, it happens, it would not be: the proposed redirect target IS the Wallachia article. Ravenswing 23:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The exact opposite is reasonable and correct. Part of the content of Wallachia # History to supplement this article. 213.149.159.237 (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Wallachia#History Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes. There is a consensus on the merger. The question, or rather the dispute, is whether the content Wallachia#History should come in this separate article (which is right, reasonable and normal) or whether to erase the history of the autonomous region from the 15th-19th centuries. 213.149.159.237 (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Nonsense. There is more historical content in the Wallachia#History section than in this fork, and a redirect would "erase" nothing beyond some knee-jerk nationalist competition defined by how many separate articles there are saying the exact same things. Ravenswing 04:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Wallachia has a history dating back to 1330. Romania did not have a history before 1859. So there is an article on the history of Romania (a century and a half) outside the presentation of Romania in the main article, and Wallachia with an independent history within 6 centuries - no. There is no weight and logic to the proposal. Bodinski2 (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really, really baffled here. Let me phrase this as simply as I can: no one is proposing a redirect to Romanian articles. Wallachia already has an article. We are proposing redirecting this to that article. There is no weight or logic to your opposition. Ravenswing 20:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wallachia#History. Nobody is saying that the history of Wallachia is non-notable, what they are saying is that the article is not beneficial and the topic is already covered (and covered better, I should add) in the mentioned section. We could discuss a split from that article to this one, but that's for another day, and what can be instituted in the interim is a redirect. The article as it stands is poorly sourced, and doesn't contain great writing either. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mifren

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

WP:PROMO for a long-defunct failed social networking site that does not pass WP:NCORP. All the refs are to press releases or its own (now non-existent) website. Only hits I can see in RS are for Multi Input Fuzzy Rules Emulated Network, a completely unrelated—and also apparently non-notable—concept in robotics. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Website doesn't work (supports claim that site is defunct), and I couldn't find any significant coverage in my search. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article sourced only to the vendor's own single-post Blogspot, with other press releases as External Links. No evidence found that this proposition achieved any notability during its brief existence. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Less Unless (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the site. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - literally zero coverage. Never heard of it. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Mubarak

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

completely and utterly non notable tik toker. A search for sources reveals only black hat SEO spam and press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Borderline speedyable, zero sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Youtuber. Denzil1963 (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely fails WP:GNG. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Easy delete of non-notable person who is pushing to stay on Wikipedia. Nothing to show they even remotely meet WP:GNG. 96.38.37.158 (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a channel on Tiktok is not a sign of notability, and this article is totally unsourced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Devokewater@ 18:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it appears Instagram-profile bio and violation of WP:NOT. Such pages should be speedy deleted. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while he does have quite a few followers a google search provides no sources so the article fails WP:GNG CreativeNorth (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:V. Zero sources, ordinary social media person. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 16:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archibald Murray Campbell

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG - the claim to notability is that he was the head of some local organisations? One of a number of articles created by a WP:COI editor about his family members, this appears to be a historical/genealogical biography entry rather than encyclopedic. Melcous (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've checked the first two citations, and some of the claims made in the lede are not supported by the citations. I've not bothered to check the rest of the article yet, but it would not be surprising if there are other exaggerations, as this seems to be an editing pattern of the article creator. Netherzone (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment response @Netherzone:, He's taken this to Special:Diff/972949471 Article Rescue Squadron without being upfront about COI... again. He also participated in this AfD without coming forward about COI, until it was pointed out, despite having been consulted by other editors in the recent past. Graywalls (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Netherzone, well, if refs 1 and 2 aren't adequate for the claims made there, I'm sorry to say the rest of them aren't adequate either. Ref 3 does confirm that he died at Mt Vernon but it doesn't do anything to prove notability. Ref 4 is from Findagrave which isn't a reliable source, so the whole of the 'Marriage and children' section is unsourced, and it does nothing for notability either even if sources can be found. Ref 5 states that Bank of Mt Vernon was sold, dated Dec. 24, with Archibald M. Campbell among the listed purchasers. It does not confirm he became president, nor that there was a Trust Co., nor that he was president for 21 years. The brief mention is not proof of notability. Ref 6 merely notes that there was a move in Congress to amend the Bank Merger Act and that Mount Vernon Trust Co. was among a list of banks with mergers approved on Dec. 29, 1950. This does not show notability either. It seems that Campbell was a medical worthy in Mt Vernon but this sorry sourcing (of someone's ancestor?), probably all that can be found, doesn't make him notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Melcous I've had a quick look at other Henderson family members, and some of them need to come to AfD as well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Below is basic criteria of Dr. Archibald M. Campbell's notability:

WP:BASIC Significant coverage in multiple published newspapers including:

Mayor-elect Edward F. Brush announced the oppointment of Dr. Archibald M. Campbell, the richest physician of the city, to be President of the health board.
As a 19th century doctor, Campbell wrote an article in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology about how kumyss was used to treat gastrointestinal disorders.^[1]^[2]
Pominent physician and surgeon in Westchester County, first President of the Mount Vernon Trust Company.
Noted County Surgeon, Trustee of the East Chester Savings Bank in Mount Vernon.
President of the medical board and consulting physician and surgeon to the Mount Vernon Hospital.
From 1903-1907 he was president of the Mount Vernon Board of Health.
He was first President of the Siwanoy County Club in Bronxville.
Campbell gifted $250,000 for a new hospital wing at the Mount Vernon Hospital.
Rev. Charles K. Gilbert dedicated a large sanctuary window at the Trinity Episcopal Church in memory of Dr. Campbell.
Dr. Campbell was a celebrated physician, churchman, and financier.
Dr. Campbell's medical diploma is from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York. COI editor: --Greg Henderson (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Greghenderson2006, it has been told to you multiple times by other editors that you should disclose yourself as a COI editor when you participate in an AfD discussion on an article which you have a COI. Graywalls (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Graywalls, Yes, I may have a COI as Dr. Archibald M. Campbell is related to my wife. He was her great-grandfather. We never knew him, but heard about him as being a notable doctor in New York. I decided to do some research on his life and found some interesting noteworthy primary and secondary sources. --Greg Henderson (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't understand why this individual is notable. Yes, he was esteemed and venerated in his community, but there are millions of upstanding citizens, past and present, who don't have a Wikipedia article. The New York Times obituary is pretty good but similarly not every person who has a decent obituary is notable. I don't think that the number of sources really counts in this case as there is little relevant content in them. To quote WP:BASIC, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". Curiocurio (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curiocurio, please see Campell's Talk page , which has some new citations, most notable are Request Edit E - G; i.e., Dr. Campbell wrote on Kumyss in the treatment of Cholera in the American Journal of Obstetrics.--Greg Henderson (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read those request edits before making my comments. I just don't see what he had done that could be considered significant enough to warrant an article. There's more to notability than totaling up sources, quality is what counts. The achievements have to be remarkable or noteworthy in some way, not solely being a good person. Curiocurio (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good, then you will see that there is significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject, that support WP:BASIC requirements i.e., Picture of Dr. Campbell and the unvelling of a memorial window; and An honor given to Dr. Archibald M. Campbell for 50 years of service; and Noted County Surgeon, Trustee of the East Chester Savings Bank in Mount Vernon. Not to mention, he was president of the Mount Vernon bank, first president of a Golf Club and a celebrated physician, churchman, and financier. If this is not notable, then I don't understand the definition (worthy of attention or notice, of particular interest, worthy of mention, worth taking a look at, remarkable). --Greg Henderson (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry to disappoint, but the article on Kumyss (published by another doctor) cites a case where Dr. Campbell treated a child with fermented horse milk as a cure for cholera. This had no lasting impact on cholera treatment whatsoever; it is not a notable "discovery" that significantly changed the course of modern medicine. Things like the mayor-elect appointing the richest doctor in the area to a board seems like politics as usual, nothing about it distinguishes the tens of thousands of other wealthy people who have rubbed shoulders with politicians. Same with his son donating a window to a church in his honor. People with money do those things because they can; it's called self-aggrandizement. I'm not seeing anything remarkable: he was born, got a degree to practice medicine, had a lot of money, was mentioned in a published paper, got involved with finance and the country club and died. Then his son donated a window. These things may seem remarkable or important to you because he is related to your family which can cloud one's POV. I'm still looking through the citations, and will hold off !voting for now. Netherzone (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another one of family memorization genealogy entry. The article subject does not have sufficient notability to warrant a page in a global encyclopedia. Graywalls (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article Rescue Squadron the COI article creator related to the family has taken this to Rescue Squadron. Special:Diff/972949471, and did not notify that he's done so, as expected and clearly shown in the nomination instruction which says "You should disclose in a deletion discussion that a post has been made at the rescue list." Graywalls (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I checked through all of the sourcing in the article, and the requested edit sources, and have concluded that there is nothing to substantiate this individual’s notability. There is no depth of coverage. He was a local doctor and local financier, and probably a very nice person. However, there is nothing to validate that he was particularly notable in any of these areas; nothing remarkable or significant. As a doctor, he lived during a time of major medical break-throughs, yet his only contribution was to administer fermented horse milk to children with cholera during a time when multiple treatments for cholera existed such as the invention of cholera vaccines, antibiotic treatment, intravenous fluids, electrolyte replenishment, etc. Yes, he was a wealthy, “rich physician” and he succeeded in his business ventures, but they were local news and nothing out of the ordinary, especially for the time period. Fails: WP:GNG, WP: ANYBIO, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:RSMED. Here’s an analysis of the sources:

Article sources:

Equivalent to Who’s Who. Too old to be a valid medical reliable source –– See WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:MEDDATE
Trivial - One sentence mention: “the richest physician” in Mount Vernon, NY
Obit – this is the only potential RS, and is not enough to establish notability. It does establish that he lived, practiced medicine, made financial investments, and was a well-liked person. But it is no different than the tens perhaps hundreds of thousands of other obits out there. The flowery language is typical of the time period.
Trivial - One sentence mention that he and a group of men bought the Bank of Mt. Vernon.
Does not mention him.

Requested edit sources:

A. Family Search (an unreliable user-submitted deprecated source)
B. Same obit as item 3
C1. Trivial - Local paper – social congratulations; C2. Trivial mentions he’s a member of the Mt. Vernon NY Medical Society C3. Trivial article about crowing roosters and barking dogs at night and mentions that he apparently disapproved of it.
D. Trivial - Is about his son posthumously donating a window to a church in his honor.
E. Trivial - His church gave him a tribute because he went to the same church for 61 years.
F1. Article by another local Mt. Vernon physician with a trivial mention that he treated a child with fermented horse milk as a treatment for cholera. There was absolutely no lasting impact of this treatment and it is not considered a valid medical achievement, nor is it a cure for cholera. F2. same as F1. F3. self-authored five-page synopsis of his use of fermented horse milk to try to cure cholera (primary source). F4. & F5. same thing. This is an irrelevant marginal idea and treatment. Also see WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:MEDDATE and WP:RSMED and WP:MEDINDY
G. Local obit; obit from organization he was a member of; death notice in college alumni newsletter. Netherzone (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone Thanks for your review. I appreciate the time you took to review my article. I believe the Dr. Campbell article is well written and includes primary and secondary citations. If you compare the article with these: Flossie Cohen, Nate Mack, Arthur Gillette, and Anu Prestonia, based on the same categories, you will see that Archibald Murray Campbell is far more WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, and WP:RS. I have a WP:COI with this article, but an advocate for WP:WPBIO. --Greg Henderson (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Playing the Odds

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

Claim to fame for this porn is singer Stacey Q appears in it, but I couldn't find anything relevant during a search to support its notability. PROD was removed because "Reviews undoubtedly exist, even if hard to find, but merge is more appropriate to the director’s article." Donaldd23 (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is definitely more appropriate, why not save the energy of everyone concerned and just do that? Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources; for example there are no external reviews listed at IMDB and no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes. Regarding a merge, there is nothing sourced in the article and very little content but there is nothing to stop reliably sourced information about this film being added to the director's page if that coverage can be found, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. Of relevance: Draft:Lionel B. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel B

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

I fail to see much online to help establish true WP:GNG. Using IMDB so much is a major red-flag in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 & G11. A quick peruse of the "America Daily Post" reveals it is a fake news site and it's "staff" page is made of of fabricated personalities (none of the names have matching social media or Linkedin profiles, which a huge red flag as far as people working in news media go). Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely paid-for spam given use of black hat SEO sites as references. I've blocked the author for this. MER-C 17:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I have to agree with GPL93, this is plain old promotion with no notability component. Hopefully the current speedy tags will be acted on.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voices for Burma

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

I reviewed this article as a new page. It is supported by refs to two newspaper articles and a WP:BEFORE search did not show me anything else to support notability. Having submitted evidence to parliament does not make an organisation notable. I PRODed it but the article creator has dePRODEd with a concern that deletion is politically motivated. In my view this does not meet WP:ORG so bringing it here to see what the consensus view is. Mccapra (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. The article, sans suitable references, appears to be promotional. Whiteguru (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Samuel Baker. Sandstein 07:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rifle And Hound In Ceylon

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

This is a book published in 1847 by Sir Samuel White Baker. All the references do is confirm that it exists. Any information of interest can be incorporated into the article about Baker. David notMD (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. David notMD (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. The first source cited is a list of known copies of the book. The second seems also to be to a catalog of books, though I can't be sure as the URL provided gives a 404 message. I've searched myself, and found nothing better – mostly just pages listing copies of the book for sale. Maproom (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The doi connects to the Lorimer ref. It does not contribute to notability. David notMD (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Samuel Baker. Not enough to merge, I don't think, and agree that Lorimer article doesn't give us much to go on. A few other namedrops in scholarly sources but no sustained critical comment. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnet Theatre, Exeter

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

Struggling to find enough coverage of this tiny drama company / theatre school / theatre. Have looked at the British Newspaper Archive as well as through Google, as if there is coverage I think it will be in local papers or The Stage. (NB There is also a theatre of the same name in San Diego, and there was a Cygnet Theatre in Edinburgh in the 1950s too.) Tacyarg (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Too small to be notable. Tiny article on a tiny theatre and there are no sources. Denzil1963 (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see only one review of a play (and a couple of previews in the local press), when one would expect many. The school trains only 12 students (3 per year). I don't think it's notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agnetha Åsheim

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

In line with the deletion decisions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kjersti Bø and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximilian Pupp, this is another retired Norwegian skier who competed in the World Cup of Skiing but never finished very high or attracted much attention.

Skiing doesn't have an SNG to use as a rough guide to notability, so we have to go by WP:GNG, per WP:SPORTCRIT. I have done a reasonably thorough BEFORE search (for an English speaker), and I have found no in-depth sources about the subject. There were only routine interviews/fluff pieces in the local paper ITromsø, and listings on sports statistics pages. As she has been retired for over ten years after a very brief career, it is unlikely that any further in-depth sources will emerge. Per SPORTCRIT, Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources...is not sufficient to establish notability; we cannot maintain this article on the basis of stat pages. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the WP:BEFORE was respectable enough for an English speaker, it can by no means cover the relevant sources. I added multiple non-trivial in-depth third-party sources to the article, often about Åsheim and her teammate as a sporting duo. "Fluff piece" and "routine" are of course tendentious terms seeing as she actually won something (hence the degree of "fluff"), and the sporting championships were held "routinely". So now there's both prolific World Cup competitions as well as newspaper backing in the mix. Geschichte (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geschichte, presumably those ITromsø articles you added were accessed online; perhaps you could include URLs so other editors can access and review them? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles found via the search engine http://nb.no/search can't be accessed by non-Norwegian IPs, but luckily, Tromsø can! Geschichte (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geschichte, thanks for adding the URLs. The thing is though, having a bunch of sources in the local paper (and ITromsø is only a municipal-level paper, with a circulation of less than 10,000 copies) isn't sufficient to support a claim of notability on an encyclopedic level, for a couple of reasons. First, WP:N requires topics to have gained "significant attention by the world at large"; coverage in a local paper doesn't pass that bar. The single Nordlys source has a better scope, but it's still only regional, and without the URL there's no way to evaluate the article's depth or content. Second, under WP:SIGCOV, "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability;" that is, all those ITromsø articles are generally considered to be one source, not several. So basically there's routine hometown coverage, and one regional-level source about her receiving a local sports award. In my opinion it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:N. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of articles in Nordlys. I will try to add them in the very near future. Geschichte (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

10:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks Geschichte for due diligence and contributions. Hmlarson (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is narrow, but clear. The subject does not meet the higher standard of sourcing required to support notability of corporate entities, and there is no appetite for refactoring this into an article on the purpose. As the article has been moved out of process, the move was obviously potentially controversial, it is considered null for purposes of AfD closure. No prejudice against restoring to a draft under the title of the person for submission through the AfC process. BD2412 T 00:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avandi

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

Reviewed under new article review process. No indication of wp:notability. Of the three references, one is to their own website, and the other were medium/short pieces on trade websites, both appear to be mostly Avandi-generated content. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google's not showing any great wealth of independent sources, and the three cited sources are thin. Non-notable per nomination. --Lockley (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I changed the "further reading" section name to "bibliography" to make it clear that it was a list of sources. I also put each of those sources as in-line citations. I believe that the time span (2014-2020) of those sources and their reputability establishes the subject's notability. The two design prizes won by the subject are further indicators of notability. --Brookford (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC) EDIT: I removed the subject's own website as an in-line reference. --Brookford (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 05:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There has been some debate in the past at AfD on topics which are companies, but which rely entirely on one or two well-respected people in their fields. The issue is that most of the sources provide in-depth information on the individual(s) but not the company - which is the topic of this article. I'm of the opinion that the founder may very well meet the guidelines for notability but based on WP:NCORP, there must be references that deal with the company. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: well the sources seem pretty split on Avandi/Ariane van Dievoet, with an edge towards Avandi I'd say. Also Avandi seems to be the professional name of the designer in addition to just being a company name. --Brookford (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 17:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Ariane van Dievoet. I reframed the article to be about the company's founder. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources in the article such as these three articles to allow Ariane van Dievoet to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the procedural aspects of this, but all of the discussions are about the topic and I think that that is what the AFD discussion would be about and certainly what it has been about. IMO an article about a different topic is best made & handled separately. North8000 (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search of "Ariane Van Dievoet" and "AVANDI" give virtually no meaningful coverage and the few two paragraph write ups don't really lend themselves to notability. Praxidicae (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

10:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Editors are free to create a {{Wiktionary redirect}} instead. Sandstein 08:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photogenic

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

Has been entirely unsourced since its start in 2005 currently doesn't indicate how this is more than a dictionary definition. A quick google search brought up a bunch of dictionary entry websites such as this one, a few youtube videos on how to be Photogenic such as [9], an intagram hashtag (WP:UGC) but nothing usefull. Btw this is my first XfD nomination so if I did domething wrong, please notify me. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Merge to Wiktionary, not for Wikipedia. DicDef. Any sources could only speak to the dicdef Fiddle Faddle 10:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to photogenic. 2,000+ views in the past month—people want the info, but agree that enwiki is the wrong place for it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portrait photography. There are a few sources around that could be used to add a couple sentences to that article,[10][11] but a standalone article is probably unnecessary. Station1 (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If kept rename to Photogenicity. Probably keep, at that name. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbolick, see wikt:photogenicity. Same argument applies Fiddle Faddle 17:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the contention is we ought not have a Wikipedia page on something with a Wiktionary page, then we are sure to end up getting rid of things like Luminosity and Speed and Beauty, no? All are in Wiktionary. Think I needn’t bother with the links. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Photogenicity" is not a word at dictionary.com or 3 other dictionaries I consulted. Station1 (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: peer-reviewed articles and books either use it as a mundane adjective (not significant coverage) or define it a particular way for the rhetorical purpose of that particular piece. The latter results in multiple definitions, but trying to define all of them does little to help readers. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of "Wikigenicity". A definition and lots of unsourced blather aren't going to cut it. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: if we have consensus to delete, should closer delete Photogenic (disambiguation) as unneeded? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Further question: are there cross-wiki dabs (to wiktionary, e.g.)? I am very skeptical that anyone searching for "photogenic" cares about Photogenics. So deleting the dab wouldn't seem to serve readers super well. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @AleatoryPonderings: no. Instead, like any other non-existent page, deleted articles and dab pages will have a sidebar encouraging readers to search the sister projects, e.g. the page at quizzacious. Does that answer your question? And does it clarify my reasons for asking about deleting the dab page? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes and yes—thank you! Agree that the dab should go if this article goes. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Princess Alexia of Greece and Denmark. Tone 12:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Morales Quintana

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

I know very well that Ghits are not sign of notability or lack thereof but when someone gets only 60, and virtually all from blogs and image hosting websites, it does tell you something. I see no significant coverage as defined by WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. I suspect the only reason the article exists is his being married to the daughter of the deposed king of Greece, which is against WP:INVALIDBIO. The source stating he is a "person of interest" in a criminal investigation consists of five sentences, only three of which are about the investigation. Surtsicna (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a geneaological dictionary for members of deposed royal families, especailly members by marriage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princess Alexia of Greece and Denmark, per WP:CHEAP, WP:BLP1E, and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Consorts_of_nobility. The only scandal mentioned went nowhere. He hasn't done anything except to be the husband of a princess. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Queen Mathilde of Belgium#Early life and family. Sandstein 08:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Maria Komorowska

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

The article exists solely because she is the mother-in-law of the Belgian king. The subject has received no significant coverage, thus failing WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. That she is the mother of the wife of the Belgian monarch is not a reason for a standalone article about her; see WP:INVALIDBIO. Wikipedia is also not a dumping ground for genealogical entries; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a mother-in-law of a king is not enough to justify having a free standing article, anything we need to say about her we can say in the article on her daughter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comment above, no indication of notability.Smeat75 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability can't be WP:INHERITED from her daughter, and outside having the title of a countess, there are no indication she did anything to become notable. (If anyone cares, see also Wikipedia:Notability (nobility) but it is a failed proposal). PS. I nominated it for AfD at pl wiki, might be a good idea to wait a week or so just in case someone digs up some Polish sources (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2020:08:14:Anna Komorowska (hrabina)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge into her daughter's page at Queen Mathilde of Belgium. Her daughter is a Queen, and her grandchildren are royalty by birth. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Prince Wilhelm of Prussia (1906–1940)#Marriage and children. There is consensus she is not independently notable, a redirect is suitable per WP:ATD-R Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothea von Salviati

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

There is no significant coverage as required for proof of notability by WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. She married a make-believe prince, had children, "led a quiet life", and died. All of that can be said in the article about her husband. Wikipedia is not meant for mere genealogical entries; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Prince Wilhelm of Prussia (1906–1940)#Marriage_and_children, where the essential matter is already covered. Mangoe (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no indication of notability.Smeat75 (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to her husband as per Mangoe, no evidence of independent notability. —Kusma (t·c) 09:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is nothing more than a genealogical record. The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that cover anything directly and indepth about this individual because they have done absolutely nothing notable. Being related to a public figure is not notable WP:INVALIDBIO WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY of non-notable members in royal families. // Timothy :: talk 05:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mangoe, with a limited smerge. She's not notable by herself, but she connects two notable families. I'll do the merging myself, per WP:BOLD. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC) Done with my smerge. Redirect to your heart's desire. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Felicitas of Prussia

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources; she is only mentioned in passing in genealogy publications. This article too serves as a mere genealogical entry. The only prose in the article is information about other people, namely her father. The rest is pure genealogy. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for genealogical entries, however; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no indication of notability.Smeat75 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article consists almost entirely of routine genealogical information, unclear that we should describe her as a princess, claim to notability is that she is the granddaughter of the last Crown Prince of Germany, born after Germany abolished its nobility. PatGallacher (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of content about the person. If kept, move to Felicitas von Nostitz-Waldwitz, her actual name. ("Prinzessin von Preußen" was her maiden name, and not a title as there was no Kingdom of Prussia during her lifetime). —Kusma (t·c) 08:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is nothing more than a genealogical record. The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that cover anything directly and indepth about this individual because they have done absolutely nothing notable. Being related to a public figure is not notable WP:INVALIDBIO WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY of non-notable members in royal families. // Timothy :: talk 05:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV - there's a couple of good sources in the article, and she was royalty in her own right. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, she was born after her country abolished royalty.Smeat75 (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly cannot tell how you see significant coverage in the sources cited in the article. One of them is about her daughter and the other is a death announcement (not even an obituary). Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' when she was born it was almost 15 years since the monarchy had been abolished. There is nothing at all even remote to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aftek

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. It may be a listed company, but it lacks significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Hatchens (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Good catch! Can't find any in-depth reliable sources. Plus, I checked the history and the article was started by an employee of the company for which they were given an "Award for Marketing"! Utterly non-notable MaysinFourty (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. Routine coverage of a middling company. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mortician (band). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Massacre Live!

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

Non-notable live compilation album. References to AllMusic (just a track listing for this album, not significant coveage [12]), Last.fm (deprecated), and Metal-archives (user-generated per WP:ALBUMAVOID. Bandcamp, rateyourmusic, and soundcloud are unreliable. Other than that, I'm finding sales sites and blogs. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found a few reliable sources which talk about the album: Encyclopaedia Metallum, Sepulchral Voice and Core and Co. It's barely talked about in Voices From The Darkside and Billboard. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSICRS lists Encyclopaedia Metallic as user-generated. Hog Farm _Bacon 11:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does not seem to be notable. Allmusic is not reliable when the page is just a track listing. Encyclopedia Metallum is not a RS in any way. The French and Spanish language sites look like blogs to me so I doubt their notability (the fact that I don't speak either French or Spanish is insufficient now as they write about the album - I can understand that). Other than these the same unreliable sites like Discogs, RateYourMusic, SoundCloud, Apple Music, Spotify, etc etc etc came up. Mortician is a notable band but this album isn't. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mortician (band) – I'm not convinced that the sources found by Superastig above are significant enough to bring this above the WP:NALBUM bar. The Sepulchral Voice source appears to be only a couple sentences long, and while the Core and Co source appears to have a few paragraphs, the author of the article is unattributed, and overall I'm a little skeptical of the reliability of the source. It doesn't look like there are any better sources here, and especially since this is a live compilation album, rather than a studio production, for a relatively obscure band, it is unsurprising to me that it may not be notable. Mz7 (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discovered several sources that indicate notability. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 10:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Fennell

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

Non-notable silversmith. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 07:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Theo Fennell is a world famous renowned jeweller to the rich + famous, there are numerous articles regarding his work + his business --Devokewater@ 13:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are certainly non in the article, where exactly is the coverage for the others. Post some references up, so they can be examined. I did a search an couldn't see much in-depth. scope_creep^Talk 16:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope_creep^Talk I've been aware of his notabiliy for many years, recently read a long interview with him in the FT (subscription) that stated he was a billionaire international jeweller to the rich + famous --Devokewater@ 09:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence. Stating something is entirely subjective and without basis. Provide the source so we can look at the evidence. There is nothing on the article. scope_creep^Talk 10:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your right. I've found a whole bundle of stuff. Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 10:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Chaos (disambiguation)

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

This doesn't seem necessary as We Are Chaos is an album and We Are Chaos (song) is a song from that album, making this page redundant to the navigation the album article already provides without it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from article creator. This page was created at a time when no-one knew whether "We Are Chaos" was just the title of the album or the lead single. Now that things have settled down, we know that the album is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I'm happy with We Are Chaos being the album page, and "We Are Chaos (song)" being as it is. The disambiguation page is unnecessary. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A disambiguation page is not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cafe Latte attack

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

A non-notable topic with no significant coverage in reliable sources and as pointed out by user DoubleGrazing in their prod rational "current sources are from 2007, which is an eternity in IT terms". GSS ^💬 06:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. An article on a non-notable topic with no coverage. HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 20:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, despite the couple of articles at the time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not meeting the requirements. Non-notable. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable hacking thingy. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 00:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hatta Solar Project

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

This article about a solar project seems to be native advertising for a energy company by a now blocked suspected undisclosed paid editor. The project was a minor affair - fitting solar panels to 560 properties and the coverage reflects that with the coverage in The National being the only significant piece . The rest of the coverage is in niche publications and reads like slightly adapted press releases. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Unless it can be salvaged into something, perhaps merge to have a mention in the Hatta page Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 08:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the alleged sources are most likely just regurgitating a press release by the company, and are then in turn used to try to legitimise this article. Ultimately it's about a non-notable, run-of-the-mill solar power project, of no interest to anyone but the company involved, and providing no encyclopaedic value. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 05:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skull Cave

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. There is no referenced content to merge to The Phantom and even redirecting is a problem, as this name should be used for either article about a real place(s) called Skull Cave ([13], [14], and I think there are more) or a disambig. PROD removed with nor rationale by the usual culprit. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable independent of The Phantom, which mentions this location once. If any real-world information can be found, it can be added to the Phantom article. I don't see a need for a redirect, since anyone looking for Skull Cave should be able to find the Phantom article without our help. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More abuse of our deletion processes contrary to WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IGNORINGATD; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTCLEANUP; &c. The Phantom's cave is covered in detail in sources such as The Phantom Comics and the New Left: A Socialist Superhero and The Phantom Unmasked: America's First Superhero. Insofar as there are other real skull caves too, then this indicates that we should be expanding and disambiguating, not deleting anything. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look to see what The Phantom Comics and the New Left says about Skull Cave? Page 2 lists some of the fictional contents of the cave. Page 24 mentions the name as one similarity between Phantom and the star of Heart of Darkness. Page 58 says the Phantom has treasure in the back of it. All of the mentions are in passing while the author makes another point. Isn't it possible the nominator did do a BEFORE search, and found the available sources insufficient? Unless you can point to a source with content that could actually be used to improve the article, you should stop tossing around these bad faith criticisms of "abuse". Argento Surfer (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-trivial real world coverage has not been presented. TTN (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this subject is not substantially covered in reliable third party sources, and cannot meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is quite likely to WP:ASTONISH anyone trying a search. Even if it were moved somewhere with a parenthetical dab to encourage article creation of the real-world caves mentioned in the nomination, I don't think WP:GNG is satisfied to merit that course of action.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Views are split between keep and merge, so a second AfD is not recommended, but rather (if any further discussion is desired) a merger discussion on the article talk page. Sandstein 17:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Marx

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

The article fails WP:GNG. Sources show he is not notable himself, but only known because of his relationship with Marx. Content should be trimmed and Merged into Karl Marx // Timothy :: talk 03:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on Karl Marx.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While acknowledging that searching is difficult, given that the results are swamped by material about his son, I'm not seeing coverage outside the context of "he was the father of The Marx". Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have a few books on Marx and did a Kindle search and couldn't find anything in the books or bibliography entries that established independent notability. // Timothy :: talk 19:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the reason people care about him is that he is Karl's father, we have sources about him and publications from Heinrich that show some notability. By all means get rid of most of the "Literature" section (copied from the German Wikipedia, where such uncommented lists of possibly relevant texts are commonplace). But I'd rather suggest to trim the content about his father in the Karl Marx article and send people here instead of merging anything into that already very long article. —Kusma (t·c) 20:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to read some of the articles by Heinz Monz [de] mentioned in this bibliography that appear to focus on the elder Marx, for example " Die rechtsethischen und rechtspolitischen Anschauungen des Heinrich Marx" mentioned here. We even have a detailed list of the books in Heinrich Marx' library: p. 128, to mention another example of material about Heinrich, not Karl. —Kusma (t·c) 20:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, Heinz Monz, was writing about the collection of books/literature that Heinrich possessed right? @Kusma: Or were the books/literature the works of Heinrich? - hako9 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hako9,Heinz Monz has written several articles about Heinrich Marx, for example one about his legal ethics and legal politics. He has also listed the books that Heinrich Marx owned, and an annotated version of that list is in an article by Manfred Schöncke that I linked to above. Overall, together with interest in the semi-forced conversion of Heinrich Marx to Christianity, I think there is well enough to write a decent article (WP:V), and material by sufficiently many people to pass WP:N. —Kusma (t·c) 09:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seals the deal for a keep, atleast for me. The fact that multiple authors at the time (pre-internet era), have written about his life in sufficient detail, should establish notability individually. - hako9 (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand that notability is not inherited but there is sufficient content here to warrant a standalone article. Also, when the main article gets too verbose, we usually WP:SPLIT the content anyways. If we look at this article as an article about Karl's relationship with his father as a standalone article, which can't be merged to Karl Marx's article because it's too large, we can argue for a keep. Also, the section about his life cites a book (by Allan Megill) whose subject although is Karl, but it also focusses on Heinrich and his life too. In the "after conversion" section notable historian Isaiah Berlin writes about Heinrich in particular too, although again, the subject of the book is Karl. Also, the works section cannot be discounted/disregarded. Not having access to/or not having read the works doesn't mean they aren't notable works. - hako9 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this argument from hako9 - "If we look at this article as an article about Karl's relationship with his father as a standalone article..." - has substantial merit to consider. Thanks hako9. // Timothy :: talk 00:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- "Not inherited" is an important principle for WP, but it is not applied in the case of the most notable people. With Karl Marx among the most significant people of the period, members of his close family may also be notable. I accept that the article is in fact largely about the background and upbringing of Karl Marx. We often have articles on relatives of American presidents, for example. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Granite Horizon

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

Pretty clear fail of WP:NCORP in my view. I could not find any WP:SIGCOV. Citations are to press releases or government databases that index literally all the companies within the relevant jurisdiction. They have raised a grand total of $115,000 in funding. Notability tagged since 2013. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in independent, reliable sources. There are no sources that could be used to write an article, and we're not a business directory. Vexations (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Barely found anything about the company. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, fails WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 00:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BioTherm Energy

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. DePRODed and expanded a bit, but the sources seem low reliability (press releases, their rewrites, mentions in passing, and overall business-as-usual). WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't know anything about this company before, and did not have an established position about this AfD until doing some research. I had a deeper look at the reliability of the sources, since the criteria for organizations (WP:ORGCRIT) has "a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals".

The sources included in this article, plus a few more I found, mostly seem to be African sources, which were unfamiliar to me. So I tried to gauge the reliability of each one and this is what I found, mainly following WP:NEWSORG:

Sources that appear to be reliable:

BioTherm Energy wins 251MW renewable energy projects in South Africa (2015): A trade magazine with published editorial standards.
BioTherm Energy secures 20 MW solar project in Ghana (2016): Article in trade magazine with a named author and contact information.
Seven innovative companies meeting Africa’s renewable energy needs: Article with named author in a publication that has a named editorial team.
SOUTH AFRICA: MIGA grants $116 million in guarantees for 4 renewable projects (2020): Article with named author. Background of the author and description of the editorial team is provided.

The acquisition of the company by Actis Capital was covered by a few reliable sources such as:

Sources that appear to be reliable, but with weaker evidence:

Four new renewable energy projects in South Africa receive support from MIGA (2020): Very recent article in trade magazine. Author is named, but full name or contact information is not provided.
BioTherm reaches financial close on four renewables projects (2018): Article in trade magazine. Author is not named, but editor is.
BioTherm flush for African wind (2018): Short article. No named author, but named editorial team.

Less reliable sources or content:

BioTherm Energy Pty Ltd: Bloomberg profile, but might be trivial.
BIOTHERM ENERGY: This appears to be re-publishing a corporate press release from Biotherm.
Four new renewable energy projects in South Africa received MIGA support (2020): Recent article, but could not ascertain the reliability of the source.

I believe this meets the multiple sources criteria (I read WP:3REFS for further guidance) for signicant coverage.

Additionally, WP:ORGSIG states that: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." I believe the effectos Biotherm's projects in the economies of the and power infrastructure of the African countries where it works can be demonstrated by their size. Furthermore, the company has obtained support from international financial institutions such as the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency.

Finally, Biotherm's previous CEO, Jasandra Nyker, received awards for her work at the helm of the company, such as this one, and more recently this one. She was also invited to participate in discussion panels organized by the World Economic Forum, such as "South Africa 2017 - Electrifying All of Africa", and Bloomberg Philanthropies, "Business Opportunity: 2016 U.S.-Africa Business Forum". This was in her capacity as Biotherm's CEO at the time. (This is to ensure parsing by the AfD stats bot. My iVote is Keep ) Alan Islas (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've put a lot of work into establishing whether the sources are "reliable" or not but appear to ignore WP:NCORP guidelines on "Independent Content" in WP:ORGIND. Announcements and PR (i.e. most of the references you've mentioned) fail the criteria for establishing notability. The others appear to use company-provided stock descriptions with no in-depth analysis or independent observations. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HighKing for pointing that out. I see that even though those publications and authors appear to be independent from the company, the policy does warn about trade publications. However, after that initial search I've come across this BBC News story about BioTherm, which I believe constitutes an independent source providing significant coverage of the subject.

After reading the material concerning this discussion and the related AfD for BioTherm's former CEO Jasandra Nyker, I'm forming a picture in my mind that this company (and that person) are notable in the field or topic of African renewable energy industry, which may be suffering for a lack of overall wider coverage. I have no expertise in this area to be more certain, but I can see parallels with subjects closer to my background which would be notable in their own fields, but receive almost zero attention outside specialized, niche publications. So I don't know if it's possible that BioTherm is actually an important renewable energy company in Africa, but still fails to meet the notability criteria, due to the nature of that field and WP rules. Then on the other hand they did get some attention from the BBC.

Anyway, I'm still trying to learn about Wikipedia policies, their spirit, and how to apply them in specific cases. Cheers, Alan Islas (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan Islas: I think you may be confusing Wikipedia:Notability with Wikipedia:Importance (as in, while notable and important may be synonyms in everyday English, they are not on Wikipedia; what is important in real life is not necessarily notable on Wikipedia). See also WP:ITSIMPORTANT and WP:ITSNOTABLE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the BBC video. My opinion is that is fails WP:ORGIND because it relies exclusively on information provided by the company and their executives. It's a coup for the company, for sure, to have their profile boosted on TV. But listen to who provides all the facts and information about the company ... it is always a company executive or information provided by the company and parrotted by the presenter. There is no independent opinion or analysis provided by someone not affiliated with the company. As such, this references fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HighKing for your detailed analysis of that source, I see what you are saying.

I think you are right Piotrus, I'm probably confusing notability with importance. I did try to argue based on WP guidelines, hence my attempts to analyze and provide sources. But I also acknowledge that in the back of my mind I'm envisioning those huge wind and solar farms, arm-thick wires carrying power for miles and miles across different African countries, and what this involves in millions of watts and millions of dollars, and the realities of concrete, labor, engineering, technology, user benefits, policy, etc. So yes, when I compare the work of BioTherm I think it's more important than, say, secondary TV actors, old videogames in obsolete consoles, random pornstars, obscure in-universe characters, etc, which are deemed notable and have WP articles without controversy. I realize this shows my personal biases, but I'm actually quite happy to accept policy and consensus and I'm glad I've had my say (and some more!) during this process. Thanks! Alan Islas (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pure WP:ADMASK case. -Hatchens (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mesa Power LP

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PROD declined with a merge suggestion by User:DGG, but first, this is mostly unreferenced, and second, merge where? To Pickens Plan? Pampa Wind Project? T. Boone Pickens? I thought about boldly redirecting this but the text is a mess and I can't even decide which, if any, of those is a good target. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anyy of the three would be good targets, but I suggest more specificallyT. Boone Pickens#Alternative energy.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:NCORP the 2 sources are deadlinks and a before search turns just this from 2012 that is just routine coverage. --Dom from Paris (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. I don't see anything worthwhile to merge either, a mention-in-passing, at most, is all that is required in related topics. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infantry Attacks series

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

I've PRODed it a while back as failing GNG/NORG (products)/NBOOK/etc. It was deprodded with one review to a niche website which I didn't consider very reliable back then (not much better than a blog) and my BEFORE now still fails to find any sources about this. This kind of content can be listed on BoardGameGeek, which is a catalogue for all board games - but we are not (WP:NOTCATALOGUE). On a side note, this is a series of games, so we would need more reviews to show that the entire series is notable, not just a review of one or two of its sub-games... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. --Dom from Paris (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Secure Shell#History and development. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SSH Communications Security

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Finnish wiki article is of little help and most sources cited are press releases, their rewrites, mentions in passing and reports on routine operations. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find dozens of hits with "SSH Communications Security" in Helsingin Sanomat search results, almost all are paywalled and in Iltasanomat is.fi search results. I haven't had time to research the hits yet, but I just wanted to comment before there are votes based only on the nomination. -kyykaarme (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kyykaarme: We have time (at least several days) and can wait for you to access and review the sources. Do you think you'll be able to do it within a week or so? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First a speedy, then a prod and now an AfD, all from the same editor. The Banner talk 15:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because the article looks like spam? GizzyCatBella🍁 02:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP the sources are almost exclusively press releases and company listings, the only one that isn't (Cyber scoop) deals with the Ylonen and makes a passing mention of the subject calling it a product and not a company. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a publicly listed company that, in December 2000, was the focus of an article about high expectations related to its listing by the Helsingin Sanomat: [15]. It didn't turn out to be a major company, although it's still listed, but it's a part of the IT industry history, as SSH is a notable technology and the founder Tatu Ylönen (which is redirect here) is a fairly notable inventor. Although an equally good option would be that Ylönen would have his own article and this would be a redirect there. --Pudeo (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pudeo: Just a note that being listed is by itself not good enough, see WP:LISTED. But yes, coverage like [16] could be helpful, but I can't read this, since it seems paywalled. Can anyone comment on whether this source is reliable and in-depth? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. But after the IT boom the sources are a lot more scarce. --Pudeo (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The founder redirects here and is notable unless a namespace is created for him.Manabimasu (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've taken some time to search for sources in various languages. For listed companies, it is usually fairly easy to see if they've been covered by an analyst report but I cannot find anything that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most of the references are PR and company announcements, basis financial stuff, nothing that meets the criteria for "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. As such, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Secure_Shell#History_and_development, where the company is mentioned in a historical context. I agree that the company probably does not rise to the level of GNG notability. Nonetheless, the company and its founder are important in the history of the Secure Shell protocol. Both are mentioned in the history section of the Secure Shell article with what I think are due weight. Basic facts are verifiable and this is a plausible search term. Hence, redirect. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect: per those arguments above. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Fresh

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

Not clear he meets WP:GNG or WP:BASIC or WP:ENT or WP:CREATIVE; only one award listed, and that's probably not currently enough; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet CouRageJD gets his own page. Blueshocker (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, WP:OTHER; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 06:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources given for the article do not indicate that Mr Campbell meets our notability guidelines. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: ~~So far, all deletion arguments are based upon sources in the article. However,~~ (Regarding the !vote above), per WP:NEXIST, notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. The argument WP:EXIST used to relist is not valid IMHO because as per WP:AADD NEXIST is only relevant if you show hard evidence that notability-supporting sources definitely do exist to repair the article with, and is not a compelling argument if all you do is make idle guesses about what might be possible. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Northamerica1000, forgive me if i misunderstand, but i seem to disagree with what you say as you relist: In my argument for deletion, the nomination, i made no reference to the sources, the entirety of the argument is that there is nothing in the text of the article which implies that the subject meets WP:GNG or the other guidelines i mention. In other words, WP:NEXIST isn't relevant, because the subject isn't notable, regardless of the sources in the article (or elsewhere). Please explain, if i have not understood what you mean, or possibly rethink your comment? Thanks; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 15:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LindsayH: You stated that it's "not clear" whether or not the subject meets notability guidelines, which could imply that it's not clear from the sources presented in the article, versus stating directly that source searches did not provide additional evidence. It appears that you based the rest of the nomination upon the "listed" award, that being the award listed in the "Awards and nominations" section of the article, stating that it's "probably not currently enough". Overall, basing notability upon a "not clear" and "probably" basis is not the same as directly stating that the subject is non-notable, you did not indicate whether or not you performed additional source searches, and it's not clear if you searched to see if the subject has received other awards or not, simply potentially basing the nomination upon what is in the article's awards section.

You stated in your comment above that there is nothing "in the text" of the article suggesting notability, but General notability (WP:GNG) is not based upon suggestions from prose within Wikipedia articles. Notability based upon WP:SNGs can be potentially ascertained from content in articles, such as, for example, if a person has competed in the Olympics (WP:NOLY), which provides presumed notability. Rather, General notability is based upon whether or not the subject has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Since you have further explained your stance, I have struck part of my relisting comment and added in new information in parentheses (diff). However, one delete !vote is soleley based upon sourcing the article, so I have not struck it all. Regarding the delete !vote following the relist, I cited a Wikipedia guideline page, whereas WP:AADD is part of an WP:ESSAY, and essays are not guidelines, having not been thoroughly vetted by the community. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I understand more clearly now what you were saying. Still think he's not notable, but at least i don't feel we're singing off different pages now; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 06:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG with coverage in Detroit Metro Times, Dot Esports, Marca, Tennis Australia. - Brojam (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Those four sources are, in order, a passing mention, significant but niche press, minor, and a passing mention. Altogether, not significant coverage though clearly on the trajectory. Current version of the article is refbombed with nothing to salvage. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Czar, Dom from Paris, and Nick-D, I agree that the sources in article fail to validate the subject matter's notability. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV on the subject. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. It seems quite clear that there is no consensus to delete and there are multiple calls for a speedy/snow close. Even the nominator would be content with a non-deletion alternative such as redirection and discussion of such options can continue on the article's talk page. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 16:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Harris (professor)

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

Run-of-the-WP:MILL professor is not automatically notable because of his daughter (See WP:NOTINHERETED). Open to a redirect to Kamala Harris. KidAd (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why was this nominated for AfD in less than four hours after article creation?[17] Oakshade (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the page for deletion after I saw that it had been created. But I don’t see how that’s relevant. KidAd (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barring any serious BLP issues, instantly seeking deletion to a page without any reasonable time to let editors improve and grow an article is seldom helpful and is frequently a case of WP:BITE. You could have easily just placed a notability tag if you truly felt the topic was not notable. Oakshade (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be odd not to include a page on this individual, bearing in mind the high profile of his daughter (indeed both daughters). I write as a user in Europe, for whom this detail will be informative and useful. 07:30, 12 August 2020 (UCT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjshart (talk • contribs)
Weak keep. It's obvious that recent political events were the trigger for the article creation, but just as NOTINHERITED means that he does not become notable merely for having a more-notable daughter (and ex-wife, and other daughter), it also means that he does not become non-notable merely for having a more-notable daughter. The article's notability should stand or fall on its own merits. I found and added to the article 11 published reviews of his most well-cited work, the book Capital Accumulation and Income Distribution. He also has several other less-significant books on the Jamaican economy but I did find a couple of newspaper articles mentioning them years after their publication, so they're not completely forgotten. I think there's a borderline case for both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. And if there are more profiles specifically about him like the Marie Claire one, he could well pass WP:GNG as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ++ with thanks — FlashSheridan (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think there are enough articles about him to qualify him as notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He might have anyway qualified. He definitely does now with his daughter a candidate for one of the most powerful offices anywhere. And his ex-wife has been on since 2019.--GwydionM (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Slightly weak cases for WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR already combine to a pretty solid case; some GNG coverage as parent of a VP candidate does not hurt. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. for now. Considering that Joe Biden is old and probably going to win the election, the chances of Harris' becoming the father of our first female president will go way up in November. Either that, or it may be a good idea to remove him. leaving it here for 90 days or so won't hurt anyone. Besides, between now and the election, people will be interested as to who this guy is...Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the fact that he happens to be the father of an American Vice-Presidential nominee should qualify him as notable enough for a page here. Particularly since pages aren't created for the parents of the vast majority of world leaders, let alone their deputies. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - Neutral since notability is borderline. Weak preference for either move to WP:DRAFT or redirect to Kamala Harris for now but keep the history so it can either be merged into that page or recovered later if and when the subject clearly meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I'm fine with an outcome of "keep" but if that is the outcome, please consider "no consensus to delete" rather than an outright "keep." I expect this person's coverage in the press will increase over time. As such, I expect he will meet WP:Notability in a few months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, there is a flood of coverage in relation to his daughter. While WP:NOTINHERITED is a thing, it does not mean that coverage in relation to his daughter is entirely left off the balance sheet in deciding whether we can write a policy compliant article, when combined with unrelated coverage of his own independent work and accomplishments. GMG ^talk 13:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is notable due to his academic activities and authorship regardless of Kamala, there are plenty of academics with less notability than him with Wikipedia pages.XavierGreen (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close: We can always revisit after the American election if any doubt remains.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per XavierGreen. ~~---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinitrix (talk • contribs) 15:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ditto XavierGreen. Stanford Emeritus alone is sufficiently notable. I further observed the initiator of deletion and the only supporter have allowed political bias to affect their postings before.Drb333 (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drb333 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per XavierGreen. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn the AfD (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkham Burroughs' Encyclopaedia

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

I really wish this were notable, but I don't think it is. There's this (name drop), this (another name drop), this (basically a name drop; certainly not critical commentary) and a single article in the Hartford Courant from 1984 called "Dusting Off Encyclopedia After 95 Years", which is a nice story about its republication in the '80s but doesn't get it to pass WP:NBOOK on its own. Just don't think there's the coverage here (although I don't have access to that many historical newspapers, which is where I'd expect the coverage to be if it does exist). All the citations are to GoodReads. Notability tagged since 2013. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's WP:THREE articles: [18][19][20] Haukur (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And for easy reference, here's the Hartford Courant article mentioned in the nomination: [21] Haukur (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haukur's work. Caro7200 (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Thanks very much to Haukurth for finding those articles and clipping them so I could see them! I knew there had to be something out there. Clear case of WP:THREE here. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We aim to please. Wikipedia:Newspapers.com is often a useful source, you can apply for access if you think it might come in handy for you! Haukur (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Holiday 100 number-one songs

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

The Holiday 100 is a chart published 5 weeks a year by Billboard and has been in existence for less than 10 years. It has not received independent coverage in reliable sources, and a list of its number ones is not notable in and of itself. It was notable when All I Want for Christmas Is You reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 at the end of 2019. It's not notable that it has been the number one holiday song for 40 out of 45 weeks on this chart. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem particularly extensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 12:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saeid Eslamian

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

The article no reliable references, only links to irrelevant websites. The person does not meet notability criteria at all and is using Wikipedia for promotion. The name of the person is only mentioned in one of the references, which is his university homepage (you could write anything your homepage, so it's not a reliable reference). For biographies of living persons multiple secondary reliable sources are needed. Much of this article is original research. I came across this article after receiving an email from a predatory publication. They included a link to this article as an advertisement. This is clearly for promotion purposes. There are tens of thousands of academics with similar qualifications than this person, but I am afraid none of them meet the notability requirements. I even checked the person's papers before nominating the article for deletion: mostly mediocre or predatory publications. Thanks, Pirehelo (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion page was malformed (missing the header and links) and did not show up on the daily log properly. It has been fixed but will need seven days of discussion from today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep since the person is clearly notable, see https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=CUW8Y6IAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao which shows over 240 papers with more than 10 citations. However, it should be rewritten to be more balanced. --hroest 18:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. The page has a decent number of views per day when compared to other researchers (see here). I'd like to point out that his citation impact used to be low, with a sudden rapid increase in 2017; maybe a little time should have been given before creating this article. Lastly, since Dr. Eslamian is the creator of the article, and has many contributions on it, there might be a WP:CONFLICT of interest here. Still, I believe it is a net keep. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 04:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per the citation record and WP:PROF#C1. He appears to be editor in chief of some journals but I'm not convinced they're mainstream and established enough for #C8. But his Google Scholar profile lists him as distinguished professor, and if that could be established by more reliable sources then he would also pass #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpkin Center, Lassen County, California

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

A crossroads in the middle of an agricultural area, with a house on the northwest corner and another with farm outbuildings on the opposite corner. Topos show the same, and that is all I can find out about this spot, but it's not a town. Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Not a community and certainly not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't see any evidence that this exists as a community and there doesn't appear to be anything there other than a few farm buildings. There are a fair number of hits for the other Pumpkin Center in California. Hut 8.5 17:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another erroneous GNIS designation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. rough consensus is that WP:NPROF has been met, AFD is not cleanup and a messy page is not a reason for deletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eran Elhaik

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

My concerns are a lack of notability from RS - there are far too many primary sources here. If not deletion which I think is most possible - I think WP:TNT would be in better order. The fact that a SPA wrote the majority of this page makes me wary. Sgerbic (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:PROF#C1 and heavily cited publications on Google Scholar [22]. Article appears factual and not excessively promotional to me. And he has significant international news coverage for his work [23] [24] [25] The facts that the article appears to have come under attack by SPA Elbeavo long after its creation, and has recently been tag-bombed by Ixocactus, are also not reasons for deletion. I am suspicious that his research is unwelcome to some ears for reasons unrelated to whether or not it is valid scientifically (about which I have no informed opinion). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unwellcomed tags can be removed David. Be bold. On Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry#Elhaik et al., studies I discovered some sources about the Elhaik's work. I noticed this guy because his controversial methods are noticed in a recent book marketed in Brazil by churnalism pieces and mocking memes. I finded only one analytical approach in "Erased blacks and indians: study angers scientists linking cearense to viking". According geneticists and historians the book uses genetics to support old antiscientific racist theories. Ixocactus (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether his work in genetics mirrors old theories based in racism is irrelevant. Whether it is scientifically valid, only coincidentally prefigured by the racists, and attacked by people who don't like to be told that their origin myths are inaccurate, or whether it pure crankery motivated in racism itself, is also not very relevant to this discussion (although of course it is relevant to how we frame his work in the article). What is relevant is how widely noted his work is. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The highly cited publications on Google Scholar look to have 40+ authors! Excluding papers with extremely high numbers of authors, there's one with a mere 6 authors and 472 citations; after that, it's 72 citations. There is a case for WP:NPROF C1, but it is much weaker than it first appears. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I stumbled across this page and the article for deletion discussion. It seems that this article is a very poor stub. Wikipedia articles are supposed to give information in a format that most readers can understand and I couldn't follow the research section because of the unlinked jargon. Either this section has to go (and then the whole page should go) or the article could be saved if it was re-written or even if the research section was re-written to be understandable. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep Subject appears to be notable under WP:NPROF, though as Russ Woodroofe noted need to watch out for multiple authors, but there are also the sources that David Eppstein found too to show notability. The article itself isn't great though, but AfD is not cleanup. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, esp. per David Eppstein's outline of the issues. He has a very strong index for scholarly productivity (See the google scholar citational index linked at the bottom of his page), regardless of the specific controversy (poorly represented on Wikipedia, since his thought has evidently, as one would expect from a scientist, grown more nuanced as new research alters perspectives). One should be particularly wary of claims of non-notability being pushed when the work of the subject in question has been greeted in some quarters by politicized mockery and amateurish journalism by people unqualified to judge extremely complex technical papers. Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Walt Disney Treasures. Sandstein 09:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Trip Through the Walt Disney Studios

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

Non-notable documentary. The article only cites a single source that is to a blog and nothing comes up about this in a WP:BEFORE except for a few trivial book mentions. Ultimately, I couldn't find anything about it that would pass WP:NFILM, like multiple in-depth reviews. As an alternative to deletion it could also be merged or redirected to Walt Disney Treasures. Since I guess it's part of the box set. Although, I'm not personally a fan of merging badly cited content, but I'll leave it up to other people decide. Adamant1 (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything that makes this 10-minute film, or its close cousin How Walt Disney Cartoons Are Made, independently notable. Might merit a brief mention at Walt Disney Studios (Burbank) (since it's about the studio) or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) (since it was apparently filmed to get RKO execs excited about that movie), but I don't see it passing WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Walt Disney Treasures as it is cited, but there isn't enough for its own article. I'm itching to be persuaded otherwise, so you dear animation Wikipedians, prove me wrong! FWIW, I didn't find anything in the Entertainment Industry Magazine ARchive or Newspapers.com. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After greatly extended time for discussion, there is no sign of developing a consensus. Issues with the article may be resolved by setting standards for removing red links, requiring notability (such as limiting the list to the demonstrably most common surnames, or surnames connected to notable people, or some combination of these limitations), and perhaps requiring a source for every name to be included on the list. BD2412 T 03:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of surnames in Ukraine

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

The article has stood for over 10 years without having its notability challenged. It is essentially an indiscriminate directory-style list of Ukrainian surnames and I'm guessing its intention is to be an exhaustive list of every surname in Ukraine. I feel it fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG but I'm open to being proved wrong. Spiderone 16:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous consensus to delete:

Related discussions:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to create an exhaustive list of every surname in Ukraine. Unlike e. g. Chinese or Korean surnames, Ukrainian surnames may have any length and may be created from nearly any word using a loose set of rules. Is it possible to create an exhaustive list of surnames that are used in the UK or USA?
Moreover, it is not clear what surnames are considered to be "in Ukraine". For example, there is a sizeable ethnic minority of Koreans in Ukraine. Should the surnames of these Koreans also be included in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A31A:A044:5D80:AE0F:41F1:400C:691D (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be renamed to List of Ukrainian-language surnames to give a clear and appropriate scope that matches the category. postdlf (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The renaming would not be appropriate since the article's intention is to be an exhaustive list of all surnames that exist in Ukraine rather than a list of surnames that originate from the Ukrainian language. Spiderone 21:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and per WP:CLN as complement to Category:Ukrainian-language surnames, which includes 421 surname articles. postdlf (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion rationale is best summarised in this section of policy, which states "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them, but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper." This article violates that because it is an indiscriminate list of every Serbian given name and is largely unverifiable. Spiderone 21:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the solution to that is to make it discriminate and verifiable by limiting it to only those with articles (just as we’d just remove the non notable garage bands in the example you quote). Are you unfamiliar with that common editing practice for lists, or the fact that we do not delete content for fixable issues? Your comment above that it would be inappropriate to fix it honestly doesn’t make any sense; we’re never prevented from improving content by someone’s prior intent. And policy requires that such alternatives to deletion are considered. postdlf (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered the alternative of just keeping the blue link surnames but then I still don't see how the list would be encyclopaedic; it would still be just a directory list of surnames that are considered to be Ukrainian. Spiderone 10:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it would index our articles by what they are. That's enough, because "Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." postdlf (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think being encyclopaedic and verifiable should take priority over any of this alleged usefulness Spiderone 14:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what limiting the entries to articles only would accomplish, as was already said. If they are not verifiable as Ukrainian surnames, they also should not be categorized as such or listed, and the remedy for that is to remove incorrect entries. Certainly some names are verifiable, and presently the category includes well over 400. I honestly don't understand your underlying argument; assuming you actually understand how lists of articles work or that AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP (and you've demonstrated awareness of neither). Are you are claiming that whether a surname is Ukrainian or Serbian or Russian is inherently unverifiable? I don't think that's plausible, but regardless that's a much bigger discussion because we have an entire category structure based around that, Category:Surnames by language, indicating that many editors believe otherwise. You've instead started four identical nominations separately, which is honestly an obnoxious way to proceed because the same discussions are proceeding on each one at the same time with the same arguments copied and pasted. If you're not going to withdraw to do a group nomination (as you should have done in the first place), then you should add links to each of the AFDs pending so the discussions are connected. You couldn't even keep straight which of your own nominations you're posting in, as you've referred to "Serbian" above and in other non-Serbian nominations. postdlf (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the typo but the clarity in meaning was still there. Please see the top of the article. As you can see, previous consensus does suggest that these articles do not belong in Wikipedia. If consensus is now to keep this article, then it will represent a change in consensus on these types of articles. I'm hoping a few more Wikipedians get involved and we'll see which way the consensus goes. Spiderone 12:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those AFDs are all 13 or 14 years old now, and some were kept, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common Chinese surnames which you did not link for some reason. Category:Surnames by language has existed since 2007. So there is clearly a current and widespread practice of classifying names by language. You've not addressed why we shouldn't do it in lists when it is done in categories; it is the same practice either way. postdlf (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't necessarily agree that categories for surnames/given names by language should be kept either but that's a different discussion for a different day and is not an argument to keep these articles even if we do, for argument's sake, get consensus that the categories should be kept. Spiderone 16:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CLN applies when the list can provide something beyond mere alphabetized links. This article does not, and should not be kept unless demonstrated to provide something better than being a context-free directory. Information such as prevalence can also go at Eastern Slavic naming customs or Ukrainian name. Reywas92^Talk 02:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually not what WP:NOTDUP says; CLN applies regardless. Lists don't need to be annotated to justify their existence, though they always can be. postdlf (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: legit list per WP:CLN, WP:NOTDUP states: "building a rudimentary list of links is a useful step in improving a list. Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks" and WP:AOAL lays out potential advantages. // Timothy :: talk 14:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And per appropriate topics for lists, we have "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example, a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value." and "Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." This article covers a topic that is too large, unverifiable and, most importantly, has no place in an encyclopaedia. Also see WP:ITSUSEFUL which is basically what your argument is. Spiderone 14:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was directly quoting a relevant guideline, which does indeed speak to the useful functions lists provide, as do all list guidelines. postdlf (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (changed vote): I was reading this discussion Spiderone posted and the mention of "List of Jewish names" startled me. I actually can't believe it didn't occur to me immediately what various lists of names that usually to belong to a particular group have been used for historically. This may not have occured to others as well. I know this was absolutely not in anyway the intention with these Wikipedia lists, but good intentions can be used by those with other than good intentions. This is enough for me to switch to Delete. I doubt there is a policy or guideline to directly support this reasoning, but per WP:IGNORE I think Delete is the best way to improve the encyclopedia. // Timothy :: talk 07:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Jewish names has existed since 2012. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Spiderone 09:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "Ukrainian surnames" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. Hu, Zhengbing; Buriachok, V.; Sokolov, V. (2020). "Deduplication Method for Ukrainian Last Names, Medicinal Names, and Toponyms Based on Metaphone Phonetic Algorithm". In Hu, Zhengbing; Petoukhov, Sergey; Dychka, Ivan; He, Matthew (eds.). Advances in Computer Science for Engineering and Education III. Cham: Springer Nature. p. 521. ISBN 978-3-030-55505-4. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
  The book notes:
  
  Analysis of the Sample of Last Names
  After normalization process of the last names, statistics were collected by the most common names. Based on these statistics, a list of last names with a frequency of use of more than 0.3% of the total number of last names (from 6,100 times) was formed. Table 1 provides examples of the most commonly used last names with a frequency of more than 0.8% (for transliteration into the Latin script was used BGN/PCGN Romanization in the 1965 edition). The female version of the last name is given through a slash.
  The table is captioned "Table 1. The most common Ukrainian last names."
  The last names listed are Mel'nyk, Shevchenko, Boyko, Kovalenko, Bondarenko, Tkachenko, Koval'chuk, Kravchenko, Ivanov/Ivanova, Oliynyk, Koval', Shevchuk, Polishchuk, Tkachuk, Bondar, Marchenko, Lysenko, Moroz, Savchenko, Rudenko, Petrenko, and many other names.
2. Pugh, Stefan M.; Press, Ian (1999). Ukrainian: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. pp. 90–93. ISBN 0-415-15029-9. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
  The book has these subsections: (1) 2.3.5.1 Declension of masculine surnames and (2) 2.3.5.2 Declension of feminine surnames.
3. Pihach, John D. (2007). Ukrainian Genealogy. Edmonton: The University of Alberta Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-1-894865-05-0. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
  The book notes:
  
  Ukrainian surnames have been discussed and described in many publications. Much of the literature is in Ukrainian, but some information is also available in English. In addition to the titles cited in this chapter, see: F. Bohdan, Dictionary of Ukrainian Surnames in Canada (Winnipeg: UVAN, 1974). This compilation of thirty thousand surnames includes a short essay, “Anthroponymic Changes in Canada and the USA" by J. B. Rudnyckyj.
  Luba Fedorkiw, “Ukrainian Surnames in Canada,” MA thesis, University of Manitoba, 1977.
  John-Paul Himka, "Solving Last Name Mysteries," Nase Leude Bulletin, summer 1994, [2–4].
  William F. Hoffman, Polish Surnames: Origins and Meanings, rev. ed. (Chicago: Polish Genealogical Society)
  ...
4. Chornous, Oksana (2018). "A Classification of Ukrainian Surnames Derived from the Proper Names of Persons on the Basis of Appearance". Onomastica (in Ukrainian). 62. Institute of Polish Language (Polish Academy of Sciences). doi:10.17651/ONOMAST.62.10. ISSN 0078-4648. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
5. Bohdan, Forwin (1974). Dictionary of Ukrainian surnames in Canada. Winnipeg: Onomastic Commission of UVAN and Canadian Institute of Onomastic Sciences. OCLC 900692.
6. Radion, Stepan (1981). Dictionary of Ukrainian surnames in Australia. Melbourne: Academia Scientiarum Mohylo-Mazepiana Ukrainensis. ISBN 978-0-9592368-0-4. OCLC 10132642.
7. Holutiak-Hallick, Stephen P (1994). Dictionary of Ukrainian surnames in the United States. New York: Slavic Onomastic Research Group. OCLC 977633831.
The list is not indiscriminate.

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says Wikipedia articles should not be: "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates". This article is none of these, so it is not indiscriminate.

The list might never be complete, which is fine.
It is fine for the list never to be complete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists:
Because of Wikipedia's role as an almanac and a gazetteer as well as an encyclopedia, it contains a large number of lists. Some lists, such as the list of U.S. state birds, are typically complete and unlikely to change for a long time. Some lists, however, cannot be considered complete, or even representative of the class of items being listed; such lists should be immediately preceded by the {{Expand list}} template, or one of the topic-specific variations that can be found at Category:Hatnote templates for lists. Other lists, such as List of numbers, may never be fully complete, or may require constant updates to remain current – these are known as "dynamic lists", and should be preceded by the {{Dynamic list}} template.

General notability guideline
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I totally agree with the other delete voters. This list is indiscriminate, full of useless links, isn't sourced, and ultimately isn't useful. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT as unnecessary and not encyclopedic. Wm335td (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails INDISCRIMINATE, LISTN and NOTDIR. Ravenswing 22:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the analysis of Cunard. WP:LISTN gives several reasons why lists can exist and Cunard does an excellent job of showing how several of those reasons suggest that this is an appropriate article. The idea that our content could be used for harm should not be dismissed but is not, in this case, a policy or guideline based reason to support deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't convince myself to stop thinking that this article violates "NOTDIR". Other countries have more surnames and it is possible that the page will become so large that it will be difficult to maintain the size. There is not enough relevance of this page. Santosh L (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Cunard - I'm not suggesting that Ukrainian surnames are not a notable topic and, indeed, some of those references that you have found could be used in the article Ukrainian surnames; I am simply arguing that an exhaustive list of every single surname possessed by a Ukrainian is unencyclopaedic and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Spiderone 09:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 03:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep - We have lots of pages about Ukrainian surnames, so a navigational list is perfectly reasonable. But definitely opposed to trying to create some exhaustive list of all surnames that exist (a WP:SALAT problem, among others), regardless of whether there's an article. Keep, and remove all of the redlinks and cross-wiki links. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep changing my !vote based on Rhododendrites rationale, WP:LISTN criteria: the list helps readers navigate. If editors think that the list is indiscriminate - it can be trimmed as Rhododendrites has suggested Wm335td (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 11. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LC is an essay. Wm335td (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LC #2 says The list is of interest to a very limited number of people: a list of names of a whole county is of interest to a very limited number of people, really? #3 The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: NOTDIR is highly subjective. #7 The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category: directly contradicts WP:CLN which is a guideline. #8 The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopedia: nonsense. #11 The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date: completeness is not a requirement, there's WP:NODEADLINE. SD0001 (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LISTN is clearly met, as would be the case with a list of names of any country. INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDIR are not really applicable when LISTN is met. Without there being annotations at the moment, this is quite redundant to the category but that's generally not a problem per WP:NOTDUPE. SD0001 (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTPURPOSE being soundly met. ——Serial 16:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN, notable subject as covered by Cunard's sources. Nomian (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I would also recommend Rhododendrites' suggestions to clean up the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of surnames in Russia

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

I believe that this article fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG; it is also an indiscriminate directory-style list and it has been a WP:OR concern for almost 4 years. Spiderone 16:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous consensus to delete:

Related discussions:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and per WP:CLN as complement to Category:Russian-language surnames, which includes over 1800 surname articles. postdlf (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion rationale is best summarised in this section of policy, which states "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them, but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper." This article violates that because it is an indiscriminate list of every Serbian given name and is largely unverifiable. Spiderone 21:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CLN applies when the list can provide something beyond mere alphabetized links. This article does not, and should not be kept unless demonstrated to provide something better than being a context-free directory. Information such as prevalence can also go at Eastern Slavic naming customs. Reywas92^Talk 02:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: legit list per WP:CLN, WP:NOTDUP states: "building a rudimentary list of links is a useful step in improving a list. Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks" and WP:AOAL lays out potential advantages. // Timothy :: talk 14:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And per appropriate topics for lists, we have "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example, a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value." and "Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." This article covers a topic that is too large, unverifiable and, most importantly, has no place in an encyclopaedia. The fact that this list contains surnames like Akhmedov and Aslanov is part of the issue as well as it's pretty much a list of any surnames that feature in Russia and so the list is basically indiscriminate. Spiderone 14:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know how many surnames in Russia there might be, but this list seem rather well maintained. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (changed vote): I was reading this discussion Spiderone posted and the mention of "List of Jewish names" startled me. I actually can't believe it didn't occur to me immediately what various lists of names that usually to belong to a particular group have been used for historically. This may not have occured to others as well. I know this was absolutely not in anyway the intention with these Wikipedia lists, but good intentions can be used by those with other than good intentions. This is enough for me to switch to Delete. I doubt there is a policy or guideline to directly support this reasoning, but per WP:IGNORE I think Delete is the best way to improve the encyclopedia. // Timothy :: talk 07:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I think we should keep this because it does list Russian surnames, but we should find ways to improve it to make me more encyclopedic. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just found this article today, then created an account so I could comment. It helped me confirm that my surname actually is legitimately Russian and not modified when my ancestor immigrated to the United States. There is information that I could add to it, but not if it's deleted. Zheltie 00:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - none of the last 3 keep votes have cited a Wikipedia policy Spiderone 09:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I totally agree with the other delete voters. This list is indiscriminate, full of useless links, isn't sourced, and ultimately isn't useful. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "Russian surnames" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. Benson, Morton (Spring 1964). "The Stress of Russian Surnames". Slavic and East European Journal. 8 (1). American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages. doi:10.2307/303975. JSTOR 303975. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
  The article notes on page 44: "If the stress of a masculine or feminine declension source noun (this noun can be a given name) remains constant on the stem throughout its declension, the stress in the derived surname is on the corresponding syllable. Examples: Vóronov—vóron 'raven'; Vorónin—voróna 'crow'; Mólotov—mólot 'hammer'; Švédov—šved 'Swede'; Bársov—bars 'leopard'; Borísov—Borís (given name); Fédin—Fédja (diminutive of Fëdor) ; Bujánov—buján 'ruffian'; Kapitánov—kapitán 'captain.'"
  The article lists numerous other surnames.
2. Dunn, John; Khairov, Shamil (2009). Modern Russian Grammar: A Practical Guide. Abingdon: Routledge. p. 263. ISBN 978-0-415-42289-5. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
  The book notes:
  
  Russian surnames 12.1.3 Most Russian surnames belong to one or other of the following patterns: 1 Surnames ending in –ов(а)/-ев(а)/-ёв(а) or -ин(а)/-ын(а): this is the most frequently encountered pattern. Surnames following this pattern have masculine, feminine and plural forms:
  [list of surnames]
  The declension of these surnames is given in 2.12.1.
  Surnames that take the form of adjectives. These too have separate masculine, feminine and plural forms:
  [list of surnames]
3. St. Clair-Sobell, James; Carlsen, Irina (1959). "The Structure of Russian Surnames". Canadian Slavonic Papers. 4 (1): 42–60. doi:10.1080/00085006.1959.11417849. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
  The article discusses numerous Russian surnames throughout. Here are some example Russian surnames listed on page 49: Xadátajiv, Buslájiv, Kaznačejiv, Karavájiv, Bugájiv, Bakájiv, Genijiv, Valújiv, and Garnastájiv.
4. Karaulova, Maria; Gök, Abdullah; Shapira, Philip (2019-01-25). "Identifying author heritage using surname data: An application for Russian surnames". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70 (5). doi:10.1002/asi.24104. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
  The article lists these Russian surnames: Ivanov, Nikitina, Vyazemskiy, Chernykh, Medved, Golub, Landau, and Bidon'ko.
5. Balanovsky, O. P.; Buzhilova, A. P.; Balanovskaya, E. V. (2001). "The Russian Gene Pool: Gene Geography of Surnames". Russian Journal of Genetics. 37 (7). Springer Science+Business Media: 807–822. doi:10.1023/A:1016755111586. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
  The article notes on page 809: "The most widespread Russian surnames selected for the study" are 75 names. Here are some example Russian surnames: Abramov, Efimov, Kotov, Noskov, Sokolov, Afanas’ev, Egorov, and Kovalev.
6. Balanovska, E. V.; Romanov, A. G.; Balanovsky, O. P. (2011-06-16). "Namesakes or Relatives? Approaches to Investigating the Relationship between Y Chromosome Haplogroups and Surnames". Molecular Biology. 45 (3). doi:10.1134/S0026893311030022. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
  The article discusses these surnames: Bulygin, Kuvaldin, Il'in, Semenov, Ivanov, Popov, Sokolov, and Pavlov.
7. St. Clair-Sobell, James; Carlsen, Irina (1959). "The Structure of Russian Surnames". Canadian Slavonic Papers. 4 (1). doi:10.1080/00085006.1959.11417849. ISSN 0008-5006. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
  The article discusses these example Russian surnames: Puškinim, Júrjev, Románov, Borísov, Kalínin, Kalíninom, Xadátajiv, Buslájiv, Kaznačejiv, Karavájiv, Bugájiv, Bakájiv, Genijiv, Valújiv, and Garnastájiv.
The list is not indiscriminate.
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says Wikipedia articles should not be: "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates". This article is none of these, so it is not indiscriminate.

The list might never be complete, which is fine.
It is fine for the list never to be complete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists:
Because of Wikipedia's role as an almanac and a gazetteer as well as an encyclopedia, it contains a large number of lists. Some lists, such as the list of U.S. state birds, are typically complete and unlikely to change for a long time. Some lists, however, cannot be considered complete, or even representative of the class of items being listed; such lists should be immediately preceded by the {{Expand list}} template, or one of the topic-specific variations that can be found at Category:Hatnote templates for lists. Other lists, such as List of numbers, may never be fully complete, or may require constant updates to remain current – these are known as "dynamic lists", and should be preceded by the {{Dynamic list}} template.

General notability guideline
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cunard, if your going to continue doing the copy and pasted wall of text crap, for Christ sake can you at least show a tad bit of decency for other editors and not over line break things so freaken much? You have like 4 blank lines between the "The list might never be complete, which is fine" section and the "General notability guideline" part. There's like 11 votes and your's takes up more then half the space in the AfD then all of them combined do. Which is completely ridiculous and just makes the page extremely hard to read. It's totally unnecessary to do it that way. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails INDISCRIMINATE, LISTN and NOTDIR, which rather trumps the WP:ITSUSEFUL keep arguments above. Ravenswing 22:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the analysis of Cunard (though I have admittedly not double checked all his sources and am taking it on good faith). WP:LISTN gives several reasons why lists can exist and Cunard does an excellent job of showing how several of those reasons suggest that this is an appropriate article. The idea that our content could be used for harm should not be dismissed but is not, in this case, a policy or guideline based reason to support deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Cunard - I'm not suggesting that Russian surnames are not a notable topic and, indeed, some of those references that you have found could be used in an article called Russian names (currently a redirect); I am simply arguing that an exhaustive list of every single surname possessed by a Russian is unencyclopaedic and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Spiderone 09:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 03:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, is it the list of the Russian surnames or of the surnames of Russia (only 80% of Russian population are ethnically Russian)? It looks like second, because, for example, Elmpt is certainly not ethnically Russian surname. But then it is very strange, because it does not include popular Tatar, Kazakh or Chechen surnames. In all, looks like WP:OR. Wikisaurus (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep - We have lots of pages about Russian surnames, so a navigational list is perfectly reasonable. But definitely opposed to trying to create some exhaustive list of all surnames that exist (a WP:SALAT problem, among others), regardless of whether there's an article. Keep, and remove all of the redlinks and cross-wiki links. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Rhododendrites rationale: There are articles about people with Russian surnames, so it is a navigational list fulfilling NLIST. Wm335td (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 11. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LC is an essay. Wm335td (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and citing an essay is an editor's way of telling you they agree with it and that based on it the article should be kept. It's a nice alternative to pasting the essay into this discussion. TJRC (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LISTN is clearly met, as would be the case with a list of names from any country. INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDIR are highly subjective and thus not really applicable when LISTN is met. Without there being annotations at the moment, this is quite redundant to the category but that's generally not a problem per WP:NOTDUPE. SD0001 (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTPURPOSE being soundly met. ——Serial 16:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After the longest reasonably possible time for discussion, there is nothing near a consensus here, nor any trend towards developing one. Editors on both sides present interpretations of ambiguously-worded policies that are not outside the bounds of reason. The resolution, I would suggest, lies in developing some substantial requirements for inclusion. For example, as has been suggested in the discussion, removing all red links, establishing a standard of notability (such as limiting the list to the demonstrably most common surnames, or surnames connected to notable people, or some combination of these limitations), and perhaps requiring a source for every name to be included on the list. BD2412 T 04:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Georgian surnames

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

I believe that this article fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG; it is also an indiscriminate directory-style list and it has been flagged as a concern for 1.5 years. It is also original research. Spiderone 16:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous consensus to delete:

Related discussions:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and per WP:CLN as complement to Category:Georgian-language surnames, which includes 341 surname articles. postdlf (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion rationale is best summarised in this section of policy, which states "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them, but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper." This article violates that because it is an indiscriminate list of every Serbian given name and is largely unverifiable. Spiderone 21:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CLN applies when the list can provide something beyond mere alphabetized links. This article does not, and should not be kept unless demonstrated to provide something better than being a context-free directory. Information can also go at Georgian name. Reywas92^Talk 02:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: legit list per WP:CLN, WP:NOTDUP states: "building a rudimentary list of links is a useful step in improving a list. Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks" and WP:AOAL lays out potential advantages. // Timothy :: talk 14:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And per appropriate topics for lists, we have "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example, a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value." and "Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." This article covers a topic that is too large, unverifiable and, most importantly, has no place in an encyclopaedia. Spiderone 14:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As postdlf. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (changed vote): I was reading this discussion Spiderone posted and the mention of "List of Jewish names" startled me. I actually can't believe it didn't occur to me immediately what various lists of names that usually to belong to a particular group have been used for historically. This may not have occured to others as well. I know this was absolutely not in anyway the intention with these Wikipedia lists, but good intentions can be used by those with other than good intentions. This is enough for me to switch to Delete. I doubt there is a policy or guideline to directly support this reasoning, but per WP:IGNORE I think Delete is the best way to improve the encyclopedia. // Timothy :: talk 07:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I totally agree with the other delete voters. This list is indiscriminate, full of useless links, isn't sourced, and ultimately isn't useful. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "Georgian surnames" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. Gabeskiria, Giorgi (2001). Itonishvili, Vakhtang (ed.). The Heritage of Georgia: Where a Georgian comes to. Translated by Gogolashvili, Kote. Tbilisi. ISBN 9789992802519. OCLC 500502423. Retrieved 2020-08-10.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  The book notes: "The list of 50 most numerous Georgian family names look as follows: 1. Beridze (24,797), 2. Kapanadze (18,550), 3. Gelashvili (17,995), 4. Maisuradze (16,516), 5. Giorgadze (14,582), 6. Kvaratskhelia (13,618), 7. Lomidze (12,949), 8. Shengelia (12,764), 9. Tsiklauri (12,499), 10. Khutsishvili (11,062), 11. Bolkvadze (11,059), 12. Nozadze (10,784), 13. Abuladze (10,438), 14. Gogoladze (9,791), [36 more Georgian family names"]"
2. Axuašvili, Iakob; Silagaże, Avtʻandil (1997). Kʻartʻul gvar-saxeltʻa saidumloebani = Taĭny gruzinskikh imen i familiĭ = Mistery [sic] of Georgian names and surnames. Tʻbilisi: Molodini. OCLC 42690323.
3. Bondyrev, Igor V.; Davitashvili, Zurab V.; Singh, Vijay P. (2015). The Geography of Georgia: Problems and Perspectives. Cham: Springer Science+Business Media. p. 53. ISBN 978-3-319-05412-4. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
  The book notes:
  
  5.19 Georgian Surnames
  The Georgian surnames have an extremely old history. They clearly demonstrate a subethic origin. In the provinces of western Georgia, surnames tend to end in "dze", Megrelian surnames end in "ia," "ua," and "ava"; Svanian surnames end in "ani." The same surname ending prevails in Lechkhumi. In Kartli-Kakheti and Meskheti-Javakheti, the most common surname ending is "shvili." There are a few surnames ending in "dze." In eastern Georgian mountainous areas, surnames usually end in "uri" and "dze," but there are exceptions. The Georgian surnames are widely distributed among the non-Georgian population in Georgia. Jews, Kists, a part of Abkhazians, and Ossetians carry Georgian surnames. Among the most widespread Georgian surnames are Beridze, Kapanadze, Gelashvili, Maisuradze, Giorgadze, Kvaratskhelia, Lomidze, Tsiklauri, Shengelia, and Khutsishvili.
4. Pirtskhalava, Ekaterine (2018-09-21). "Being here and there: a case study of Muslim Meskhetians' identity and belonging, formation and reconstruction in the United States". Caucasus Survey. Routledge. doi:10.1080/23761199.2018.1499299. ISSN 2376-1199. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
  The article notes on page 10: "In exploring of the role of name shift (change in surnames) in the construction of identity, it is important to begin by noting that Georgian surnames originating in the southwest of the Republic of Georgia usually end with –ia, -ava, -dze, –shvili, or -eli; for example: Svanidze, Papaladze, Chakhalidze, or Sulkhanishvili, Gogolashvili, Jakeli."
5. Commire, Anne; Klezmer, Deborah; Morgan, Barbara, eds. (1999). Women in World History: A Biographical Encyclopedia. Waterford, Connecticut: Yorkin Publications. Gale. p. 148. ISBN 0-7876-3736-X. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
  The book notes: "Some titles from that period gradually evolved into common Georgian surnames. Some known today which originated in large households include Amilakhvari (Master of the Royal Stables); Amirejibi (Master of the Chamber); and Meghvinetukhutsesi (Chief Wine Steward)."
6. Hewitt, George (2005) [1996]. Georgian: A Learner's Grammar. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-31657-1. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
  The book notes: "Most surnames of Georgians proper (i.e. not Mingrelians or Svans) end in -švili child or -je son (earlier heir). Surnames of the first type are stressed on the first vowel of the ending, as though this were an independent word (e.g. q'arq'arašvíli, čubinašvíli). Those of the second type carry stress on the penultimate syllable (e.g. šaníje, ševardnáje)."
7. Coene, Frederik (2010). The Caucasus - An Introduction. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-20301-6. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
  The book notes: "Georgian family names often divulge information about the historic region where their ancestors lived: -dze (Kratli, Imereti and Guria), -shvili (Kartli and Kakheti), -ia (Samegrelo), -iani (Svaneti), -uri (east Georgia), -va (Abkhazia and Adjara), -ua (Samegrelo and Georgians from Abkhazia). The suffix -eli mostly indicates a name based on a city — for example, Rustaveli (from the city Rustavi)."
8. Kurtsikidze, Shorena; Chikovani, Vakhtang (2002-05-01). Walker, Edward (ed.). "Georgia's Pankisi Gorge: An Ethnographic Survey". Berkeley Program in Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies. University of California, Berkeley: 14. Retrieved 2020-08-10. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  The article notes in a footnote on page 14, "Georgian family names in Kist villages include Duishvili (formerly Varduashvili), Tskhadadze, Kotorashvili, Mghebrishvili, Gakhutashvili, Gonashvili, Tsintsalashvili, and Bekauri."
The list is not indiscriminate.

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says Wikipedia articles should not be: "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates". This article is none of these, so it is not indiscriminate.

The list might never be complete, which is fine.
It is fine for the list never to be complete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists:
Because of Wikipedia's role as an almanac and a gazetteer as well as an encyclopedia, it contains a large number of lists. Some lists, such as the list of U.S. state birds, are typically complete and unlikely to change for a long time. Some lists, however, cannot be considered complete, or even representative of the class of items being listed; such lists should be immediately preceded by the {{Expand list}} template, or one of the topic-specific variations that can be found at Category:Hatnote templates for lists. Other lists, such as List of numbers, may never be fully complete, or may require constant updates to remain current – these are known as "dynamic lists", and should be preceded by the {{Dynamic list}} template.

General notability guideline
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails INDISCRIMINATE, LISTN and NOTDIR. Ravenswing 22:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Cunard - I'm not suggesting that Georgian surnames are not a notable topic and, indeed, some of those references that you have found could be used in the article Georgian name; I am simply arguing that an exhaustive list of every single surname possessed by a Georgian is unencyclopaedic and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Spiderone 09:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could go either way on this list. Per: WP:LISTN - Does it aid our readers navigation? maybe, does it provide information which is useful to readers? yes. Keeping this does not hurt the encyclopedia. Deleting might. I do not think it is indiscriminate. Wm335td (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 03:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep - We have lots of pages about Georgian surnames, so a navigational list is perfectly reasonable. But definitely opposed to trying to create some exhaustive list of all surnames that exist (a WP:SALAT problem, among others), regardless of whether there's an article. Keep, and remove all of the redlinks and cross-wiki links. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is absolutely useless and mostly WP:OR. An emperor /// Ave 00:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything in the article/list that is notable should easily be able to be added to Georgian name. And in that regard, @Cunard:, the sources you listed above seem like they should be used in the Georgian name article, which could use some strong references like those. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Rhododendrites rationale again here: There are articles about people with Georgian surnames, so it is a navigational list fulfilling LIST criteria. Wm335td (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LISTN is clearly met, as would be the case with a list of names of any country. INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDIR are not really applicable when LISTN is met. Without there being annotations at the moment, this is quite redundant to the category but that's generally not a problem per WP:NOTDUPE. SD0001 (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 11. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LC is an essay. Wm335td (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And a pretty poor one at that. WP:LC #2 says The list is of interest to a very limited number of people: a list of names of a whole county is of interest to a very limited number of people, really? #3 The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: NOTDIR is highly subjective. #7 The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category: directly contradicts WP:CLN which is a guideline. #8 The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopedia: nonsense. #11 The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date.: completeness is not a requirement, there's WP:NODEADLINE. SD0001 (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURPOSE being soundly met. ——Serial 16:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack D. Schwager

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP - author - with reference to his 3 books and a video interview. . Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is clearly inadequate to show notability. A video interview is never going to be enough on its own to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find any significant reviews for his books. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prev. 2019 Afd (what's changed?). It turns out I found reviews in that iteration. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both the nomination and subsequent delete !vote come across as basing notability upon the state of sourcing in the article. However, per WP:NEXIST, part of the Notability guideline page, "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Perhaps an analysis of sources presented in the previous AfD discussion would help to clarify matters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable author, his book Market Wizards is one of the foremost books on trading --Devokewater @ 11:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this stub. Schwager is one of the most widely read authors in technical analysis. His works are part of the syllabuses of several professional certification programs, e.g. IFTA::CFTe. --Rolf acker (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lets have some sources to confirm this please.Rathfelder (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The suggestion by NA1000 hasn't really be followed through despite more participation so let's try relisting once more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the suggestion of NA1000 and Barkeep49, I took a look at the sources from the last AfD. I am using the standards from WP:GNG to decide if Schwager is notable and the sources fulfil that criteria.

Both this link [26] and this link [27] are reviews of his books from Publishers Weekly, so I grouped them together. These sources are significant coverage of the author's book, reliable (although the reviews don't have the author listed, the magazine has Review Editors listed in their about us section) and independent. Link 4 in the first AfD is the same url as link 1. This link [28] is also significant coverage of the author's book, is reliable (there is an author listed and a masthead on both the Seattlepi and blogcritics.org website where the review was originally located) and independent.

I also searched for more sources. [29] recommends reading Schwager's book, while NYT also did a review on his book [30] I also found this book review from JSTOR: [www.jstor.org/stable/24586267]. The Encyclopedia.com citation [31] is not a WP:RS but the site contains a list of sources that we can use in our article (although a lot of them are behind a paywall).

I failed to find any profiles or sources about the author. However, I think Schwager fulfils WP:AUTHOR C3 because his work has been the subject of multiple reviews and C1 because numerous articles quote his work when they profiling a person interviewed for Schwager's book or quote peers in his field who recommend reading his book. Z1720 (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR, based on Z1720's analysis. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what the 'keep' votes are suggesting. The author is notable. Idealigic (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al Rosas

AfDs for this article:

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

NN farmer, fails the GNG, and to the degree they pertain, WP:BIO, WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. No significant coverage in reliable sources found (although he sure has his FB, Linkedin and social media advertising in) beyond press releases, casual mentions and namedrops. Notability tagged for over a decade. Ravenswing 02:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 02:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 02:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 02:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater 10:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that this unsourced overly promotional article has stood for over 12 years shows that the claim that Wikipedia is not LinkedIn is not built upon current practice, but it is the implication of current policy so we need to act swiftly to remove this promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Do not judge by present form-- actually a number of possibly usable references were removed by the nominator because of the " broken links" but a reference remains valid despite a broken link DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider DGG's input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable per WP:BIO. Of the three refs that were on the article before the nominator removed them: the first ref was available on archive.org, here, which does cite the "Rosas Farm" (note, not Al Rosas himself) as "one of the top small businesses in the United States" - but this is only a passing mention of the person - imo, not enough for an article. The second ref was also on archive.org, here - this is a press release, so not good enough for proving notability of either the company (which is what the press release is about), nor the person. The third ref is already a link to archive.org - but none of the versions of that ref on archive.org actually appear to work, so I can't read it. I can't find any other reliable sources elsewhere for Al Rosas. In the future, there may possibly be enough sources for the company, but almost definitely not for Al Rosas himself. Seagull123 Φ 12:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Sherman, Chris (2008-03-05). "The Grass Is Greener". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2020-08-10. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
Daniel, Diane (2008-11-02). "Florida farm an organic gourmand's delight". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-08-10. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
Allen, Rick (2014-07-30). "Chef Al brings the goods to Ocala proper". Star-Banner. Archived from the original on 2020-08-10. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
Allen, Rick (2009-12-03). "Organic, fresh, local, sustainable food - in a restaurant". Star-Banner. Archived from the original on 2020-08-10. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
Brooks, Jeff (2007-10-08). "Rosas Farms, Sysco Jacksonville ink deal". Star-Banner. Archived from the original on 2020-08-10. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
Macher, Alan (2006-07-05). "Organic Food". Star-Banner. Archived from the original on 2020-08-10. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
Allen, Rick (2008-01-10). "Rosas to be honored, and Rick to be eating". Star-Banner. Archived from the original on 2020-08-10. Retrieved 2020-08-10.

Sources with quotes

Sherman, Chris (2008-03-05). "The Grass Is Greener". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2020-08-10. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
The article notes:
They belong to Al and Erin Rosas, champions of a small group of organic ranchers with a sense of evangelism and an unabashed taste for grass-fed meat as much as for artisan farming.
...
Al has branded himself the "Organic Chef" but he and Erin and other contemporary growers no longer see abstaining from fertilizers, pesticides and hormones as their most salable competitive edge.
...
The Rosases were surprised and disappointed about the state of food when they moved to Florida 20 years ago. Erin had grown up on a farm south of Lake Superior and had been around cattle, hay and race horses all her life. "Everything we ate was fresh," she says. Al, who had been transferred from Milwaukee, was a corporate chef, and he too was dismayed.
After a year in Tampa they bought the farm north of Ocala, raised hay for horses and have been selling grass-fed and artisan livestock and dairy to chefs in North and Central Florida ever since.
They are the perfect poster couple to make the pitch, photogenic 40-somethings who homeschool their children, love to barter, brag on the health benefits of a natural lifestyle and dub themselves the hippies on the hill. They are also city-slick enough to have been Arthur Murray dance instructors and martial arts competitors.
Al was named culinary entrepreneur of the year in the Cordon d'Or ceremony in St. Petersburg in January. Erin has been Stonyfield Yogurt's Woman of the Year and Rosas Farms has just been named a finalist in the national Small Business of the Year competition.
Daniel, Diane (2008-11-02). "Florida farm an organic gourmand's delight". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-08-10. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
The article notes:
The most "boaring" day of my life? That's easy: the afternoon I spent at Rosas Farms feasting on a wild boar extravaganza created by chef Al Rosas. We were served larb, a Laotian/Thai dish made with ground meat, mint, cilantro, lime, and hot peppers; South American pupusas, or stuffed pancakes; and mofongo, a version from Colombia, Rosas's heritage, with fried pork and yucca instead of the usual plantains. We topped many dishes with his aji, a piquant red sauce found on tables across South America.
...
"Chef Al," 45, and Erin Rosas, 44, his wife and business partner, have owned this 100-acre spread, a former thoroughbred horse farm that had been in Erin's family, since 1989. Over the years the couple has turned the business into an all-organic livestock farm, as well as a tourist and corporate retreat.
The couple met in their home state of Wisconsin in 1985, when Erin took a job as a waitress where Al was the chef. "I gained 40 pounds the first year we dated," she said with a laugh. They left the farm in 1993, when Al worked as a traveling corporate food and beverage director.
Allen, Rick (2014-07-30). "Chef Al brings the goods to Ocala proper". Star-Banner. Archived from the original on 2020-08-10. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
The article notes:
Honored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as well as the Cordon D’Or in 2008 as Culinary Entrepreneur of the Year for innovations in marketing organic foods, he’s no stranger to a kitchen. He often held cooking classes in his own home, and was instrumental in opening Cuvee Wine & Bistro in late 2009, but he and his former wife, Erin, left following a falling out with Cuvee’s owners.
Allen, Rick (2009-12-03). "Organic, fresh, local, sustainable food - in a restaurant". Star-Banner. Archived from the original on 2020-08-10. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
The article notes:
So, what would compel a renowned chef to abandon his own kitchen, where he’s contentedly - and, I might add, profitably - doing “his own thing,” and plunge into the unstable and oft-scary restaurateuring world?
“Opening a restaurant was absolutely the last thing I wanted to do,” says Al Rosas, co-owner and executive chef of the soon-to-open Cuvee Wine & Bistro at 2237 S.W. 19th Ave. Road in Ocala. Passionately.
...
An internationally acclaimed mover and shaker in the organic foods world and world-class chef, Rosas calls his culinary concept “ingredient-driven. When it comes out of the ground, if it’s sustainable, environmentally harmless and locally grown or caught, it’ll be on the menu.“
Brooks, Jeff (2007-10-08). "Rosas Farms, Sysco Jacksonville ink deal". Star-Banner. Archived from the original on 2020-08-10. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
The article notes:
Started in 1990, Rosas Farms has developed a sterling reputation for its grass-fed, organically managed beef. Al and Erin Rosas are both certified organic farmers, the first in Florida. Al Rosas, known nationally as The Organic Chef, is a finalist for the Culinary Entrepreneur of the Year.
Macher, Alan (2006-07-05). "Organic Food". Star-Banner. Archived from the original on 2020-08-10. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
The article notes:
Al Rosas, 43, chuckles when he describes how he recently was mistaken for Emeril at a Williams-Sonoma store in Orlando. “One man asked me to help him pick out a chef’s knife,” he says. “A woman asked me how to boil eggs. Should she put the eggs in cold or boiling water to start?” Al once was a chef, but today, he and his wife, Erin, 42, own and operate Rosas Farms, an 85-acre organically managed cattle farm, where 60 cows are raised with what he calls “kindness and humanity.” Their home-schooled children, Michael, 14, and Lola, 10, help their parents raise the cattle and do other farm chores.
...
Al met Erin when he was working as a food and beverage director and she was a medical student. Today, Erin is a medical research specialist and advises corporations and insurance companies about medical issues, including recommending expert witnesses. Al is a nutritional consultant to grocers, food associations, manufacturers and farmers. Rosas Farms has been in business a little more than 10 years.
Allen, Rick (2008-01-10). "Rosas to be honored, and Rick to be eating". Star-Banner. Archived from the original on 2020-08-10. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
The article notes:
But Al Rosas is more than a farmer. Way more. Add descriptors such as "educator" and "chef." And don't forget "being honored Saturday with an International Culinary Academy Award."
Rosas, of Citra's Rosas Farms, is this year's recipient of the Culinary Entrepreneur Cordon d'Or (gold ribbon) - one of eight culinary accolades to be bestowed at the St. Petersburg gala.
...
Al is wrapping up his first cookbook, "The Organic Chef," featuring easy "pragmatic organic" recipes.

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

Cunard (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."
After combining all the sources here, there is enough biographical material about Al Rosas to establish notability.
Cunard (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Rosas participants: Mfield (talk · contribs), Brossow (talk · contribs), South Bay (talk · contribs), Whpq (talk · contribs), Kimchi.sg (talk · contribs), and TheFeds (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the article. The article previously had 0 sources. It now has seven sources.
Cunard (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My opinion from the first AFD remains the same. There is sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:SIRS, series of coverage in same paper or by the same journalist counts as one.. and in my opinion, the above source analysis shouldn't just be skimmed through. One of the source says "With some 600 restaurants in the area, that’s a heck of a lot of phone calls to make to find out which restaurants will be open Christmas day. But you can help! If your restaurant is planning to be open, or you know of one that will be, please let me know so I can share the news with everyone else. I’m planning to run the list of any places I know of that will be open in my Dec. 17 column in Go. So I need to know no later than Dec. 14 at noon (local time, not Timbuktu Standard). Contact me at". A coverage that is initiated by the business itself does not constitute a secondary source. I am thinking some of the source gathering and report generation is automated and does not consider the context. Graywalls (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've already !voted (delete) above, but since then, the article has been updated with a few more references. In light of this (as my arguments from my earlier comment seem to have been made somewhat redundant now), I went through these refs with this tool to try and see how good they are for establishing notability. What I think following this is that all of these refs are questionable regarding "in-depth coverage": all of them seem to talk in equal parts about Al Rosas, and his wife, and their farm "Rosas Farm". Therefore, I don't believe they are in-depth enough about Al in particular (as this article, and deletion discussion, is about Al in particular). In all these refs, Al seems to be given the same amount and depth of coverage as his wife and their farm - therefore, they're all questionable in establishing notability for Al Rosas, and so my earlier comment that Al Rosas isn't notable per WP:BIO still stands even with the updated article; just with a slightly different reasoning. Seagull123 Φ 22:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 17:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Galerie Zlotowski

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

This is a bit tricky. My main gripe with this article is that is misrepresents the significance of the gallery by overstating "representation". The first artist listed in the section that is introduced by "Artists who are represented or shown by the gallery include, among others:" is Jean Arp. Now, the Tauber-Arp estate which holds the copyright of Jean Arp and Sophie Tauber-Arp is represented by Hauser & Wirth. (That IS a big deal, mostly because Tauber-Arp's work is so undervalued) And while you probably can buy an Arp at Zlotowski (http://www.galeriezlotowski.fr/fr/artists/jean-arp/), they don't represent his estate. Same for Louise Bourgeois (also H&W), Sol LeWitt (Pace) etc. Notability of a gallery is not established by what the gallery sells, but by how much coverage it has received in independent, reliable sources, and one of the most important aspect of a gallery's operations is its relationships with the artists; if it is a gallery that operates on the "primary market" it helps to build artist's careers and creates a market for the work. This gallery operates in the "secondary market"; it has not relationship with the artists at all, and sells work for which a market already exists. And of course, even for galleries that operate on the secondary market, the GNG still applies, but I see only one source that provides significant coverage: https://daily.artnewspaper.fr/articles/avant-premiere-robert-michel-et-ella-bergmann-michel-en-vedette-a-art-basel. http://www.galeriezlotowski.fr/events/presse/ has a list, but I don't see WP:SIGCOV there either. Vexations (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like a gallery in Paris should be able to be able to be merged into a list article on galleries in Paris. BD2412 T 01:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a secondary market gallery that fails NCORP. There is no SIGCOV. Theredproject (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NCORP and WP:GNG there is no in-depth coverage of the subject in independent RS, the sources are nothing more than passing mentions, what's-on articles and announcements. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn't inherited, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that the subject meets WP:NBOOK. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Zionism on Campus

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

The page is about a book. The book exists but is not notable. Googling "anti-zionism on campus" returns about 6k hits. ImTheIP (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ImTheIP (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BOOKCRIT.There are more then 2 reviews of the book present in the article I had added additional reviews --Shrike (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources already in the article such as full reviews so passes WP:GNG and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews included in the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the identified reviews. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sudeep Mehta

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable photographer WP:CREATIVE. Bio is filled with unreliable sources and promo material. - hako9 (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unable to find any independent, in-depth sources. MaysinFourty (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This commercial photographer is at the beginning stages of his career and does not meet our notability requirements for GNG or ARTIST. Any article that has to mention "runner-up" or "honorable mention" "third place" or "most popular" to fill space is stretching it. Maybe in 5 or 10 more years. Netherzone (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 12:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is clear consensus that this topic does not qualify for a separate article. While we are encouraged to consider alternatives to deletion, there is also a consensus that a potential merger into College Park, Georgia would not be appropriate. As such we are left with a deletion consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Favor Track Club

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

Found this in CAT:NN cleanup. Several of the sources in the article are primary, others are listings of match results of members of this track club and are not in-depth for this organization. The Atlanta Constitution article I can't access, but it looks decent from the title. However, I'm not finding anything else. [32] just namedrops the organization. [33] just lists this in part of a table of results. [34] states someone was once a member of this club, but is not in-depth. [35] is power rankings on what might be a blog. [36] looks like it might be a paid-for blurb on a track club listing site. I'm not seeing a pass of WP:ORGCRIT here. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Haven't had a chance to dig in, but since I have access to newspapers.com I found the article in note 1 and linked it so all can see. It's a good sized article with a bunch of color photos. --Krelnik (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is practically nothing that would enable this subject to claim a stand-alone Wikipedia article, e.g. WP:EVENT, the best alternative to deletion is a Merge to College Park, Georgia, where the program takes place. -The Gnome (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge this article with College Park, Georgia. Pahiy (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pahiy and The Gnome: - At least to me, having information about a very minor track club seems rather WP:UNDUE at the main city article, especially since no comparable organizations are currently mentioned there, I believe. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose merge - It lacks the significant coverage to establish notability, and an article on a city is not a dumping ground for non-notable businesses and organisations. -- Whpq (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, given the outright opposition to a merge from some participants, we're at no consensus for an article no one seems to be in favor of keeping. Closing it that way seems like a poor outcome, so relisting a third time in hopes that clearer consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't merge. Seems too trivial and not relevant enough to the city itself to be in the city article; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. LittlePuppers (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It makes sense to merge to College Park, Georgia. WP:ATD-M Wm335td (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it makes sense to merge, this is a minor track club that has some decent members, but no real significance outside of the Atlanta region. It's non-notable, and there's no point in merging. One article in The Atlanta Constitution doesn't mean something is worth a mention in an encyclopedia. A merge doesn't seem to be merited. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the GNG and WP:ORG. What is the proven significance of this small club to the community? Anything? Ravenswing 17:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remitbee

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

Technically speaking, out-of-process move from AfC to mainspace. Failed WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me with {{U|I dream of horses}} after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 02:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me with {{U|I dream of horses}} after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 02:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me with {{U|I dream of horses}} after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 02:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete undisclosed paid-for spam. GSS ^💬 06:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced poor attempt at spamming. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we stopped having any unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Skoda

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, appears to have been originally created as a promotional article and has since been cut down. Either way, the subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hmanburg (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Basically as Rosguill already stated, subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy gng. Celestina007 09:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers#Technical societies under the IEEE. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control Society

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

Seems to be minimal coverage outside of IEEE beyond adverts for their conferences/journals, or institutions saying one of their members has won an award from an IEEE UFFC event. Has been PRODed before. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge per WP:ATD-M and WP:IGNORINGATD. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any independant sources that show that this particular article should be kept? -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is supposed to make a detailed search and says here that there is minimal coverage. They can start us off by listing the coverage they found and then we'll decide for ourselves whether it's minimal. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how it works, and you know that. The onus is on editors who seek to retain the material to find reliable sources to source it, not on nominators to prove a negative. Ravenswing 03:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this doesn't seem notable enough for an article. Merging isn't an option IMO either. Since the information is badly sourced and trivial anyway. Someone could just as easily write it for whatever article it would be merged to. I highly doubt anyone would be using it as a search term either. So, merging is completely pointless. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete:~~ Fails the GNG and WP:ORG; no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, and no valid keep argument proffered. Ravenswing 23:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a legit redirect target, I'm fine with that; *Redirect to Institute_of_Electrical_and_Electronics_Engineers#Technical_societies_under_the_IEEE Ravenswing 03:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Institute_of_Electrical_and_Electronics_Engineers#Technical_societies_under_the_IEEE, where it is already mentioned. As a longstanding Society of the IEEE, I think this is a plausible cut-and-paste search term and for manual searches, "IEEE U" already brings it up as the first result in the search popup box. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect In addition to Mark viking's point, it is also a plausible link name in articles like engineers' biographies, or in citations to publications associated with them. XOR'easter (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Certainly seems to be leaning towards redirect but owing to age of article and assertion of notability will relist to see if an affirmative case for keeping can be made.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mark Viking and XOReaster. Reyk _YO! 19:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. More of the IEEE internal non-notable suborganizations. We are not a catalogue of such minute organizational details. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H. Candace Gorman

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

WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOSALESMEN

The article is a WP:PROMO article and should be deleted per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOSALESMEN. Subject does not meet notability test. I found trivial mentions of work in news searches, google searches, JSTOR, and others.

Working on high-profile litigation is not itself notable, especially when hundreds of attorneys can work on a case and perform minor supporting roles. For instance, just one nonprofit worked with at least 600 attorneys on Gitmo litigation as of 2008, but merely appearing on a legal team for a notable case does not meet notability guidelines. Many lawyers work on high-profile cases; Wikipedia does not list hundreds of thousands of lawyers merely because of that.

Additionally, fails WP:NOSALESMEN parts 4 and 5. Contributions are primarily a personal resume: the article consists solely of her relative's name, the names of her former clients, and her work filing an unsuccessful FOIA lawsuit. The only exception -- the article's statement that "Gorman and fellow habeas corpus attorney Anant Raut were two of the first people to dispute the Bush administration's charge that approximately 30 former Guantanamo detainees had returned to the battlefield, a claim later substantiated by researchers at Seton Hall Law School" -- is unsourced; the cited source (number 3) does not mention Mr. Raut's and Ms. Gorman's supposed stance. Moreover, it is not clear why disputing a Bush Administration stance (something half of Americans, if not more, did) is notable.

The article focuses on what her clients have done or been accused of, not what she has done, with the exception of an apparently losing effort to sue the government once (something hundreds of thousands of attorneys have done). Signing on to be part of a legal team is itself not notable. Yipee8f93k (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone searching for evidence of notability will find more searching for "Candace Gorman" than searching for "H Candace Gorman", e.g. this in-depth profile of her in Chicago Tribune. I will do some searching, and I suspect more than enough coverage will be found for GnG. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you -- I will note that the Guantanamo litigation discussion was removed from the Wikipedia article after an extensive discussion from 2008 and 2009, around the time of the Tribune article mentioned. The Trib article itself focuses mainly on the activities of her clients; the most notable aspect, perhaps, is the fact that she dropped all paying work and devoted herself to pro bono Gitmo work. Certainly people devote themselves to charity in all lines of work every day; I doubt that is notable. As it pertains to Gorman, the article focuses on procedural aspects of case (getting a security clearance, flying to Cuba, how to permissibly read classified material, and talking with her client), things any lawyer involved in Gitmo would have to go through. Most of the article is devoted to her father's or other family member's previous work and activities, accusations against her clients, or what the U.S. government did in the Global War on Terror. Cheers Yipee8f93k (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A distinguished civil rights attorney whose career has been covered in multiple RS including two in-depth articles 1) lots of biographical detail and info about her Guantanamo work and 2) focuses on her central role in uncovering secret "street files" Chicago Police withheld from defendants. Lots of RS talked about her work with Guantanamo defendants, which is featured in Ron Suskind's 2013 book The Way of the World, although I agree it's poorly supported in existing article. A third piece of her work that got lots of RS coverage including WSJ and AP was a class-action discrimination suit that she ended up arguing in the Supreme Court. So there's a lot to include, and I am working to include it per WP:HEY. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a relic of our unreasonable coverage of evertything and everyone even remotely related to Guantanamo Bay, no matter how non-notable, and there is no reason to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update WP:HEY I have improved and expanded the article from the situation where it was originally AfDed. The two in-depth Chicago Tribune articles (2009 and 2016, by two different reporters) I mentioned above are WP:SIGCOV: discussing Gorman and her work "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Her first big civil rights case, which she took to the Supreme Court, was covered in the NYT and WSJ. Her Guantanamo work got some wide coverage and was featured in a book by Ron Suskind. Her more recent work exposing the secret files of Chicago Police got featured in the CNN tv show Death Row Stories. Getty Images sells a photo of her with the street files. I think the "street files" story deserves its own Wikipedia article, but for a start I hope people who look at this article as it stands now can see that Gorman clearly meets WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." HouseOfChange (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete while being in-depth, the two Chicago Tribune articles only count as a single source according to the notability guidelines. Unfortunately everything else doesn't seem to cut it either. So, there's technically only a single source that can be used for notability. That said, if someone can find another in-depth reliable secondary source I'd be willing to change my vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1: A third in-depth source would be the book by Ron Suskind, you can read some of what it says about her in the last third of this published excerpt. Others thought the coverage substantial enough that Observer reviewer listed her as one of Suskind's "archetypes of our time." A fourth would be Northern Express. And I just found a fifth in depth, a book review with a lot about Gorman. But per WP:BASIC, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and the coverage of Gorman's work in the 30+ RS cited in the article is far from trivial. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good. Except your miss quoting the Observing article to make it seem way more glorifying of her then it is. Not that it would matter, because notability isn't based on an author being overly fawning about someone anyway, but even less if it's being miss quoted. what it does say is "He presents the archetypes of our time." As in, every damn person he talks about in his book is an archetype of our time. So by your logic we should have articles about all of then I guess. That aside though, the article only name drops her after that. There's zero indication that she's a major player in the book from the article and she's sure as hell not a major player in the article itself. Which is the important thing if your going to use it as a claim of notability. Whatever WP:BASIC says, it doesn't mean you can take 50 random name drops, put them together, and call it notability. Otherwise, all we would have to do is find someone's name in a few phone books. "Hey it's basic, but it's multiple sources...So..." Seriously. Not to mention it's semi disingenuous to use a book that mentions someone as a source to show they are notable and then to also use an article about that book as way to prove they are notable. A book review doesn't show a character in the book is notable. It shows the book is notable. That's it. So go create an article about the book and add a brief mention of her to it. I'd be fine with that. I'm not going to comment on your other sources, because they are just more of the same. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1 The brief mention in an Observer review is NOT evidence of notability, and I did not present it as evidence of notability. I mentioned 4 independent sources that talk about CG in depth, let me make it clearer what those four are:

1) 2009 article in Chicago Tribune titled "Gorman vs Goliath," about her Guantanamo work.^[3] You agreed this is in-depth coverage of Gorman, including many biographical details.
2) 2016 article in Chicago Tribune by a different reporter, writing 7 years later about different work by Gorman.^[4] You agreed this was also in-depth" but claimed it was essentially the same as #1 above. This second article never mentions "Guantanamo," the first article never mentions Chicago police or "street files." No sensible policy would call these two the same.
3) 2008 book by Ron Suskind has in-depth coverage of Gorman.^[5] That link goes to an excerpt from the book, but even the excerpt talks about her in depth. You can search for "Candace" and "Gorman" yourself with Google books, it's there in preview mode. I mentioned the Observer review only to support Gorman's presence in Suskind's book. She is not a "source" behind Suskind's book; she and her adventures are part of the story he tells.
4) A book review, published in the Chicago Bar Association Record, of a book authored by multiple Guantanamo lawyers. This 4-page book review also talks in depth about Gorman and her experiences.^[6]

Due to in-depth coverage in multiple sources, I think Candace Gorman is Wikipedia-notable. But I am asking David Eppstein for his advice, because he knows more about policy than I do. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kumyss article;
^ Clinical reports of Demilt Dispensary: department for diseases of children
^ Hundley, Tom (May 10, 2009). "Gorman vs. Goliath". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved August 2, 2020. Gorman, who practices alone, specializes in civil rights cases. She has been doing this for 25 years, simultaneously raising three kids, the youngest of whom is now in 11th grade...After majoring in philosophy at the University of Wisconsin, Candace Gorman followed in the footsteps of her brother and father by going to law school.
^ Meisner, Jason (February 13, 2016). "Old police 'street files' raise question: Did Chicago cops hide evidence?". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved August 2, 2020. With the approval of a federal judge, Chicago attorney Candace Gorman has spent much of the last year combing through street files found in the basement of the old Wentworth Area headquarters, trying to match their contents with evidence that was disclosed by police and prosecutors at the time of trials long ago...Gorman and her small team of attorneys have spent hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars tracking down prisoners whose murder cases were among the stack she was allowed to review.
^ Suskind, Ron (August 4, 2008). The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism. Retrieved August 2, 2020. 'Thank you, Mr. al-Ghizzawi, I am officially your lawyer.' With that exchange of consent, Candace Gorman, a fiftyish civil rights lawyer from Chicago, mom of three teenagers, steps to the edge of a border, a low, long table separating her from a man the U.S. government calls among the 'worst of the worst.' {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
^ Gately, Clifford (2009). "CHICAGOLAND LAWYERS WHO TOLD THEIR STORIES IN THE GUANTÁNAMO LAWYERS" (PDF). CBA Record. Retrieved August 11, 2020. Among Guantánamo attorneys, she is fondly referred to as the 'feisty Gitmo lawyer.' Gorman reaches a broad audience through speaking engagements, as well as periodic articles published in the Huffington Post and In These Times, a not-for-profit, independent news magazine... At her law clerk's suggestion and with his technological savvy, she maintains a blog (http://gtmoblog.blogspot.com), and frequently posts articles, stories and artwork relating to issues at Guantánamo.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – notable per the 4 sources enumerated and described by HouseOfChange. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, excellent work by HouseOfChange. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep = her work on the secret police files is notable; she is known as an "expert" in her sub-field. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Spele

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

The sole reference is a mere mention, I wasn't able to find anything in reliable sources online. It's not even clear what the subject's real name is. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:MUSICBIO, the single source is not enough and nothing suggests that other sources will exist. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to pass general notability criteria and WP:ANYBIO. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 17:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth Yog

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

Lead section is copy vio and the article will not survive if the lead is deleted. Several references are void. User has changed username, and appears to have a close relationship with the subject. Whiteguru (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article passes notability as highlighted in the discussion (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horrors of War (2006 film)

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. // Timothy :: talk 05:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete nothing substantial found during search to support notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reliable book sources now in the article as has reviews in multiple reliable sources such as Little White Lies, Cinefantastique, DVD Talk and Horror News as linked here, and here. Some of the other reviews listed at those links may also be reliable but am not familiar with them, but overall it passes WP:GNG struck as the internet reviews are for different film as Adamant explains below, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this seems to lack multiple in-depth reviews about it. Unfortunately, the supposed reviews that Atlantic306 linked to seem to be about another movie, Zombie Lake. Which isn't this one. For some reason they are linked to in the article also. Which is weird, but whatever. Perhaps this film is a remake of that one or something. Who knows. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article uses three published books: The Zombie Film: from White Zombie to World War Z, Book of the Dead: The Complete History of Zombie Cinema and Encyclopedia of the Zombie: The Walking Dead in Popular Culture and Myth. This is three independent sources of film criticism, writing about the movie. Nobody has challenged the reliability of these sources. I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's mentioned in several books (one of which is a fairly extensive writeup in an academic press) and while the company is now defunct, it received a review from Scott Weinberg from FEARnet. The site doesn't exist any longer, but RT has preserved at least a snippet of the review. FEARnet was/is considered to be a reliable source for reviews as they definitely had editorial oversight and Weinberg was never shy at expressing criticism when it was due. It's kind of like Tor.com in how it reviewed things. (RIP FEARnet) In any case, there's enough to establish notability for this movie. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing vote due to the sources listed above. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Street dogs in Chennai

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

This article appears to be a 2014 WP:CONTENTFORK from Blue Cross of India, which is the only other article that links to this one. The vast majority of this article is a close paraphrase of a single op-ed (which is non-RS) posted in The Hindu Times [37] and is possibly even a WP:COPYVIO, and that content is mostly about Blue Cross of India and is also covered in their article. I have already ~~merged~~ put the relevant generic parts about stray dogs into Street dog#India. Normal Op (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS (what Wikipedia is not) and fails GNG. William Harristalk 07:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The nomination states that content has been merged and so deletion is not appropriate -- see WP:MAD. The page as it stands seems quite interesting and there seems to be more coverage out there such as this. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Davidson: You have misunderstood the meaning of the word "merge" as I used it above. I will clarify. I meant that anything of value from Street dogs in Chennai has been added to Street dogs#India (by me); the rest of Street dogs in Chennai is already in Blue Cross of India (verified by me), so very little if any "merging" (as we know it in Wikipedia) is needed, therefore what is left of Street dogs in Chennai can be deleted, especially since only one article points to it (Blue Cross of India), obviating any need for a continuing redirect. Read Talk:Street dogs in Chennai#Needs organization for earlier discussion about this article. Normal Op (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I understand Normal Op just fine. They have merged content from the page in question and so deletion is inappropriate. Whether further merger is to be done, is not the issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Facepalm OMG, there's a technical definition of merge and a colloquial (common usage) meaning. What I meant... last try... is that I took some of the "concepts" and made an edit to Street dog#India, thusly [38]. I did NOT copy anything from Street dogs in Chennai. I am never going to use the word "merge" again. Self-trout Normal Op (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, with the terminology sorted out, what is your position now, please? William Harristalk 10:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My position is unchanged. The title "street dogs in Chennai" is quite clear and helpful when searching for information about this issue. The title "Blue Cross of India" is not so helpful because you have to be already familiar with this organisation and its title to understand its relevance. Deletion of the street dog title, turning it into a red link would therefore be unhelpful to our readership and so should not be done. Deletion of the page's edit history would likewise be unhelpful to people wanting to follow the history of our coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying your position. William Harristalk 08:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If all the useful content is already in other articles, then there is no purpose to keeping this one. Nor is it a useful redirect target: someone typing in "Street dogs ..." will already find the main article, first. Ravenswing 02:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you have visited or lived in India then you will know that every Zilla Parishad, Palli, village and township has its collection of street dogs, many of which are infirm, some of which have their vulva's hanging out and the list could go on. Chennai is no different to Bengaluru, Hosket, Kodaikanal, Old Delhi, Simla, Jaipur, Lucknow, and places like this. The OpEd referred to above fairly much forms the substance of paraphrasing for this article. Article really has no notability. Cows, and what corporations are doing for cows, yes. Street dogs, no. Whiteguru (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The useful content of this article is already in other ones and people can find it by doing a search. So, this is useless fork. Plus, as the voter above me says, there's nothing particularly special about street dogs in this location compared to other places in India and it would be weird to have a "street dogs of whatever" article for every place in India. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of value worth keeping Spiderone 09:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The useful content already exists at Blue Cross of India. Sanjoydey33 (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Thanks to Netherzone for improving the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Danko

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

Subject fails WP:JOURNALIST. Strong WP:PROMO feel, and I have a sneaking suspicion that the article was created by the subject himself. KidAd (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Yeah, is fishy, and not particularly notable. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 07:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While the article itself is a miasmatic quagmire of bare URL's, book-link-spam and disorganization, I checked some of the bare links embedded in the article, and he seems he may in fact meet notability requirements, with coverage in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CSNBC, Slate, Detroit Metro Times, an interview in The Nation (ok, a primary source, but a reliable venue). I am definitely leaning towards keep after viewing the sourcing (esp. in the way of bare URLs in the text). It needs to be seriously cleaned up, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Will !vote once I continue to look deeper. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG. I have trimmed pretty much everything in the article other than the reliable sources. What a freaking mess! A testament to why COI editing (I'm convinced there is) leads to disaster on WP. He is indeed notable, given the sustained significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are verifiable, such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. He does NOT meet the criteria for notability as a photographer but he definately meets WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good work Netherzone! I'm changing my vote to reflect the change. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 17:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Netherzone -- Oleryhlolsson (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to El Cerrito, California. It's up to editors whether to merge anything from the history. Sandstein 08:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidtville, California

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

No evidence that this was a community. Durham says there was a post office called Schmidtville two miles from Stege from 1900 to 1901 but as we've seen multiple times, a post office is not certain evidence of a community. GNIS has no record of a community (or anything else) named Schmidtville in the county. I don't get any hits that say anything more than it was a post office. Does not meet basic notability criteria. Glendoremus (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak Keep because Schmidtville had a post office. There are differing opinions about post offices and notability. In my opinion, the post office satisfies #1 of WP:GEOLAND. 9 trivial articles in newspapers.com searching for "Schmidtville Contra Costa", here are the better ones: "farmers of Schmidtville," runaway bride married at Schmidtville - mentions George W. Schmidt, postmaster and owner of a "large part of Schmidtville", building lots available at Schmidtville, article (really an advertisement) for Schmidt's Village, picnic held by socialists at Schmidtville. Schmidtville is not listed in the current list of Richmond Neighborhood Councils. I did not check Google Books. If it weren't for the post office, I'd go with delete as the coverage is fairly trivial. Cxbrx (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a different opinion about what "legally recognized" means, but it seems like I've not been very successful about convincing others of my view, so I'm changing this to a Weak Keep so as to not block consensus. Cxbrx (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to El Cerrito, California. There was an extremely small community with this name once and it was merged into El Cerrito when that was incorporated. From [39]: "Rust was one of several villages to grow up in what is now El Cerrito, which at various times also included the settlements of Gallagher, Stege, Stege Junction, Gills, McAvoys, Schmidtville, and others. Many of these settlements were nothing more than a railroad stop and a handful of houses and most of these names have long since fallen out of use." Trying to write an article on the basis of very brief passing mentions in newspapers, which the current article tries to do, will quickly run foul of WP:NOR. Unless there's something more substantial out there it's not much more than a footnote in the history of El Cerrito, and I suggest we mention it briefly in the history section of that article, along with the other settlements it swallowed up. Hut 8.5 16:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a former unincorporated community that has since merged with a city. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another erroneous GNIS designation. Post offices are not indicators of passing WP:GEOLAND because they are not legal recognition and in the context of a RR station a post office may be tied only to postal rail functions and not to a populated place. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It makes no real difference to me (or most any reader of Wikipedia) if this article is kept or whether the content is merged into the history section of El Cerrito, California, with a redirect. Just as long as the content is kept.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to ThinkPad#Industrial design. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkShutter

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

utterly trivial, not evenworth a redirect DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per DGG. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ThinkLight was already there. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to ThinkPad#Industrial_design. Since this doesn't seem notable enough for an article, but is already mentioned in the ThinkPad article. So it's kind of a useless fork and therefore it would be fine merging or redirecting it into that article. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ThinkLight is mentioned in the ThinkPad page and it has its own article. ThinkShutter is not yet mentioned in the Thinkpad page. A redirect to ThinkPad#Industrial_design would be cumbersome, it would be OK to redirect to some generic webcam privacy shutter page or section. 217.162.74.13 (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ThinkPad#Industrial_design, per Adamant1. This feature can easily be described in that section, and it would go well with the rest of the content. I don't see how a stand-alont ThinkShutter article could be expanded significantly. Alan Islas (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is merged with ThinkPad#Industrial_design, it should be in its own subsection so as to redirect properly. A generic page or a section in Webcam would still be missing. 217.162.74.13 (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a marketing name (like a "retina"), not a patented technology. Maybe we have a rule for marketing names, like screen characteristics or ordinary non-patented "inventions"? ThisIsNotABetter (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Towson University. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Towson University College of Fine Arts and Communication

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

The article does not seem to really have any content other then listing what you might expect at a Fine Arts and Communication collage. I can't seem to find any sources warranting a stand-alone article. Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 22:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 22:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 22:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Towson University. Since it seems to be a division of that university, but isn't notable enough for it's own article. Merging it is a perfectly fine option though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Towson University not shown to be independently notable. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Jones, Calaveras County, California

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

This was brought into GNIS from a Forest Service map, but the topos show nothing in particular in the area; nor do aerials. Searching only turns up the other Fort Jones in Siskiyou County, which is also the only mentioned by Gudde. Mangoe (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the only hits I found were for the other Fort Jones. Hut 8.5 19:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Blandina

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

GNG and NARTIST fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable. Just 2 citations. 1 is a trivial coverage from years ago. - hako9 (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as above, non notable. Citations are poor and there is no canvassing of any artworks produced. Poorly presented article. Whiteguru (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This artist does not meet notability requirements for BASIC, GNG nor ARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nowhere near notability. Eternal Shadow Talk 23:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Kumyss article;

[2] Clinical reports of Demilt Dispensary: department for diseases of children

[Goliath2009-3] Hundley, Tom (May 10, 2009). "Gorman vs. Goliath". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved August 2, 2020. Gorman, who practices alone, specializes in civil rights cases. She has been doing this for 25 years, simultaneously raising three kids, the youngest of whom is now in 11th grade...After majoring in philosophy at the University of Wisconsin, Candace Gorman followed in the footsteps of her brother and father by going to law school.

[HideEv2016-4] Meisner, Jason (February 13, 2016). "Old police 'street files' raise question: Did Chicago cops hide evidence?". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved August 2, 2020. With the approval of a federal judge, Chicago attorney Candace Gorman has spent much of the last year combing through street files found in the basement of the old Wentworth Area headquarters, trying to match their contents with evidence that was disclosed by police and prosecutors at the time of trials long ago...Gorman and her small team of attorneys have spent hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars tracking down prisoners whose murder cases were among the stack she was allowed to review.

[BookExcerpt-5] Suskind, Ron (August 4, 2008). The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism. Retrieved August 2, 2020. 'Thank you, Mr. al-Ghizzawi, I am officially your lawyer.' With that exchange of consent, Candace Gorman, a fiftyish civil rights lawyer from Chicago, mom of three teenagers, steps to the edge of a border, a low, long table separating her from a man the U.S. government calls among the 'worst of the worst.' {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

[BookReview-6] Gately, Clifford (2009). "CHICAGOLAND LAWYERS WHO TOLD THEIR STORIES IN THE GUANTÁNAMO LAWYERS" (PDF). CBA Record. Retrieved August 11, 2020. Among Guantánamo attorneys, she is fondly referred to as the 'feisty Gitmo lawyer.' Gorman reaches a broad audience through speaking engagements, as well as periodic articles published in the Huffington Post and In These Times, a not-for-profit, independent news magazine... At her law clerk's suggestion and with his technological savvy, she maintains a blog (http://gtmoblog.blogspot.com), and frequently posts articles, stories and artwork relating to issues at Guantánamo.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]