The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This doesn't really seem to be a thing. Poking around, most uses of the phrase tend to be using paranoia in the usual sense, but in the context of religious beliefs. I certainly can't find any in-depth treatment that suggests that this is considered some sort of distinct phenomenon, either social or psychological. It's hard to see how this article could ever be anything besides some unacceptable amount of WP:SYNTH. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure paranoia about religion is a "thing", for instance China's treatment of Muslims. Which clearly from a place of anti-Muslim paranoia. That said, I don't think "religious paranoia" as a concept is really a thing outside of normal paranoia. Which seems to be reflected in the facts that the article is mostly written like original research and that there doesn't seem to be any sources out there talking about it as one. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no credible substance to this article, except the fruits of scrupulosity, hysteria, irrational fears and religious fanaticism. Whiteguru (talk) 08:18, 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.
Delete - The subject of this article does not meet notability criteria GNG or BASIC. It seems that they run a pay-to-play art non-notable magazine where artists can apply (and pay) to have their work published. They also run a non-notable gallery. Netherzone (talk) 15:22, 9 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.
I can't find any indication that this is a notable building in terms of historical or architectural importance. Nothing found on a Google search but real estate listing sites. On Newspapers.com, the coverage breaks down to a) hits in Montgomery papers, too local to satisfy WP:N's requirement for wide-scale coverage, b) trivial mentions in newspapers in nearby states, and c) OCR misfires that return things like "Pisa's Tower" as hits. There is nothing that satisfies the requirement for in-depth coverage indicating interest above the local level. I tried to substantiate the claim of a 1998 award, but also found zero results no matter what I searched, clearly indicating the award isn't that significant. ♠PMC♠ (talk)22:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per the fact that winning the "Architectural Precast Association's Award for Design & Manufacturing Excellence", even if it did win that award, does not confer notability. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:33, 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.
complete hoax in that this person might be alive but isn't at all notable to the extent that this article claims. Also it's a copyright violation from here and complete vanity spam. Praxidicae (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel If you bothered to read any of the article or the sources you'd know there are 0 WP:CCS. Or do you think that this is a legitimate record label? The rest is literally made up, which fails the A7 test of having a credible claim and it was promotional and a copyvio. And yes, it's clearly designed to be deceptive as a hoax. But now we are here and will suffer through a worthless 7 day discussion about a guy who has literally no sources about him or his company anywhere on the internet, other than you know, porn.Praxidicae (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also please, do tell what claim there ever was. Is it being signed to "The Sets Records" which doesn't exist? Or the 5 stars at discogs from rating themselves? Praxidicae (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really love to know what credible claims of significance DESiegel saw when they turned down the speedy deletion. I'll note that I'm pleased they didn't totally fuck up handling the speedy deletion nomination and did at least deal with the blatant copyright issues. Nick (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of significance. The mtter is really no longer relevant sicne we are now dealing with notability, a much higher standard. Note that CCS need not be supported by any sources, nor externally verified. Since you ask, I considerd the following to be CCS:
the owner of a Database and software maintenance company “Miik Africa” which is notable in Nigeria and rated by Google
He signed a record deal with set.fm a music artist industry.
He rose to prominence after the release of the song "Hard Culture", which was rated 5 stared on Discogs.
The post caught the attention of set.fm artist world which decided to make him part of a record deal.
Note that, as I have previously stated on WT:CSD my view is that if at least 10% of artiucles with property X are eventually kept at AfD, than a statement, even if totally unsourecd, that the subjet has property X (say being a CEO) is a claim of significance. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs23:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is laughable. None of those are claims. set.fm isn't even a record label, a 5 star rating on Discogs doesn't exist. I guess you're not aware that simply being signed to a label isn't a claim of significance unless the label itself is known (or you know, in existence...) You do realize that in order for something to be credible it needs to exist, right? Miik Africa, as I noted above, literally doesn't. Praxidicae (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. How do you believe those claims are both credible and are significant ? I find myself in agreement with Praxidicae here, if a source doesn't exist, meaning the claims concerning that source have been fabricated, how exactly can those claims be credible or have any significance ? Nick (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And if anyone wants to run a sock check for WalkerSoft, CreepLord, and Shedrack321, I am sure you will snare a few more names to add to the v2burger list. Even the Musicbrainz link at the bottom of the article lists all of the various artist names this guy has used, most of which have been deleted from Wikipedia. There is no reason whatsoever that the this discussion has been open for so long. Someone really dropped the ball. 2601:983:827F:6B20:F194:3503:CE0D:3C18 (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — By far one of the worst articles I have ever seen no disrespect to anyone. It fails to satisfy any known notability criteria. Furthermore, yes! If Praxidicae called this article a hoax she wouldn’t be too far from the truth. Celestina00701:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Note that most of the above discussion is about the state of the article as it existed a few days ago. I looked at old versions and they were indeed full of statements that were definitely exaggerations about the singer's influence, and his so-called company is almost certainly a hoax. I agree that this article's saga has revealed gaps in the CSD process, but that's a different discussion. Praxidicae has since removed most of the junk, and there is hardly anything left because the kid has no reliable coverage beyond reprints of his manager's press releases in friendly non-critical publications. Good luck to the kid, but the promotional blitz to get him off the ground does not belong in Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)14:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sea of tags on the article says it all. The "sourcing" aren't worth crap: Twitter, official site, Mp3 download site, streaming service link and an article on Medium which is not a reliable source. Google results are the usual junk like databases, streaming service entries, social media pages, press releases, lyrics sites and WP mirrors. The guy exists, but this article is certainly WP:TOOSOON. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:01, 9 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.
Questionable claims as sources appear to be from a single source (i.e press releases). For example, IB Times and The Statesman do not have bylines, which suggest the articles are from press releases and not vetted or Editorial dept by the publications. Infogapp1 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is all PR trash. As a note anything in the "inspiration-hub" of Statesmen ought not be considered reliable, it's submitted PR trash. Praxidicae (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly promotional editor, always introducing bias and puffery content with no regard of copyright. Secondly, the subject's media coverage is nothing but a COVID19-conversation which has provided an opportunity for many non notable subjects to become partially notable. Keeping this situation in mind, any topic (including companies, organizations, corporations, people, and businesses) be not considered as notable that popped up in media during COVID19 pandemic. They fall under WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:INVALIDBIO criteria. Regards TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:46, 8 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.
Having no sources and being poorly written goes against this article. This seems not far from personal research with no claims to backup anything that is claimed or written. Wiki could do a lot better without such poor quality articles. U1quattroTALK04:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting rather than soft deleting as if this is not notable it seems likely there would be a redirect or merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Isuzu Motors since the vehicle is already mentioned there and it doesn't seem notable enough on it's own to warrant a stand alone article.
Keep - a long running nameplate, definitely deserves a better article. I agree that those lists of alphabet combinations are not particularly useful. I have some sources too in my library but I will have to dig them up. Mr.choppers | ✎ 11:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The main reason for the deletion of this article is this: Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.U1quattroTALK10:29, 10 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 extended times for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus (and no particular interest in deletion beyond that of the nominator). BD2412T03:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of this article is User:Randfiskin is also involved in launching (trying to work up on) non-notable wiki pages in a very short period, Cyber Peace Foundation (CPF), Vogue Institute of Art & Design and Draft:Vibhav Kant Upadhyay which have been earlier either deleted or moved to draft space for various reasons. Though the ID itself was made in 2017, it went active on July 1, 2020, by performing its first edit at Juli Berwald's page. As per my basic understanding, this ID is probably involved in "Paid Edits/WP:PAID" without disclosure. Kindly note, due diligence is required. (Similar comment has been added to the other AfDs) -Hatchens (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All the claims are baseless and there is no evidence of paid. Note this account is created in March 2020 and the user is only interested to deleting the articles no matter whether it is notable or not you may check the history.
Comment: @Randfiskin, your allegation is duly accepted. If an article passes the AfD on its merit, then well and good. If not, then it gets deleted as per the consensus. That's why I have initiated this AfD discussion. Let everyone chip in and let the sanity prevail. (Same comment has been added to other two AfD nominations - Cyber Peace Foundation and Vogue Institute of Art & Design). -Hatchens (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again baseless comment which has no meaning. While creator has rights to vote or comment on his own article. This is the same comment posted on all other discussion.Randfiskin (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dear Randfiskin, this comment is for those who will chip in their views. It is not meant to stop you but to notify others. Don't be aggressive. Kindly, stay calm and participate in this AfD discussion freely. -Hatchens (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well I am unable to sort out the notability question at this point, it's pretty there's something off about both of you and you obviously have a problem with each other that needs to to be worked out. I could really go either way with a lot of these myself, but I don't want to feed into either one of you by voting and I don't think anyone else should either. Maybe these nominations should be put on hold for and you should take it to ANI, because I don't think this is the place to litigate your personal issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rhododendrites... for asking this question. As you have correctly mentioned, the entity has been duly covered in the following media portals - BBC, FT, and Wired. All three sources are good to go as per WP:ELPEREN. But, now comes another angle... all these news coverages followed a particular timeline pattern and that is - April 1 to 10, 2015. Before and after (this time range), there is no single credible coverage concerning this entity, which proves that these particular 3 media sources are part of their coordinated PR Campaign.
You can consider my views as mere speculation, but why I'm confident? - just check the FT link, - "Produced by Aimee Keane. Filmed by Petros Gioumpasis". Kindly note, both of them are not the mainstream FT journalists they are audio-visual producers working specifically for FT's brand solution unit (for confirmation, you can check their profiles at Linkedin). -Hatchens (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I dislike the article and believe it needs to be cleaned up substantially. I see WP:CITEKILL and WP:BOMBARD, and see it as borderline WP:ADMASQ, but I have checked the first eight references. I find sufficient in them that notability is verified despite my distaste. AfD is not a matter of taste, I fear, nor is it a cleanup venue. FiddleFaddle11:08, 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.
A WP:MILL type self-proclaimed think tank having near about no substantial research output or any encyclopedic value. In other words, this article is a straightaway PR/Advertising WP:PROMO. Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP by all means. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of this article is User:Randfiskin is also involved in launching (trying to work up on) non-notable wiki pages in a very short period, V-NOVA, Vogue Institute of Art & Design and Draft:Vibhav Kant Upadhyay which have been earlier either deleted or moved to draft space for various reasons. Though the ID itself was made in 2017, it went active on July 1, 2020, by performing its first edit at Juli Berwald's page. As per my basic understanding, this ID is probably involved in "Paid Edits/WP:PAID" without disclosure. Kindly note, due diligence is required. -Hatchens (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All the claims are baseless and there is no evidence of paid. Note this account is created in March 2020 and the user is only interested to deleting the articles no matter whether it is notable or not you may check the history.
Comment: @Randfiskin, your allegation is duly accepted. If an article passes the AfD on its merit, then well and good. If not, then it gets deleted as per the consensus. That's why I have initiated this AfD discussion. Let everyone chip in and let the sanity prevail. -Hatchens (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization has enough citations that are from reliable resources and independent of the subject. Most of the coverage is significant from reliable resources and passes WP:RS. It also works closely with Government. The organization is internationally acclaimed worked with United Nations and many notable International organizations such as UNESCO, UNICEF, Google, Facebook. clearly passes WP:GNG. Randfiskin (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of course, as a creator, you have the right to put whatever you like. It's a Free world. The comment which I have added are for those who will chip in their views. It is not meant to stop you but to notify others. -Hatchens (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: vanity page maintained by WP:MILL and passing mentions. I'm also unbolding the extraneity above, which makes it appear that far more of importance is being discussed than actually is. ——Serial10:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence - It does have the hallmarks of paid/promotional editing, but when I do my own search I do find some material. The thing is, I don't have a great sense of reliability of these sources, so could probably be convinced either way. Here's some of what I see, though: meritalk overview, some coverage of a program it did in partnership with Facebook in News18 here and here, articles on zeenews.india.com, higher education digest, express computer about some project with Google... there are some others... — Rhododendritestalk \\ 02:43, 8 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.
I can find nothing to establish that Locke meets WP:NACTOR. He has, of course, arguably been prolific, but I don't think that alone establishes notability by this standard. The lone reference in the article is to Maltin's entry on Robocop 3: it does indeed mention Locke, but only his name. The most significant hits I could find were this mention in the New York Times about Locke's narration of a Murakami audiobook and this brief description of Locke's role in Robocop 3. The most recent non-trivial hit I can find is this, on Locke's role in The Man in the High Castle. He also apparently judged one or more Miss Seattle competitions.
Delete Per nom. Also, has been tagged for notability for 11 years and still has only reference which appears to be a listings type work. No content except for the list because there no coverage in sources to build it from. North8000 (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing to show he has any notability as a martial artist or actor. He meets none of the criteria for either SNG (see WP:MANOTE and WP:NACTOR). My search didn't find the significant and independent coverage I think qualifies as meeting WP:GNG. Almost the entire article is a listing of shows he appeared in, but WP is not a place for keeping resumes. Papaursa (talk) 23:50, 10 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.
This article is about a pretty small local hospital and hasn't cited any sources since at least 2018. When I did a WP:BEFORE on it nothing came up except for some pretty trivial mentions in articles about skin diseases and passing mentions in the obligatory Covid-19 related articles that every hospital has. So, there wasn't anything that would qualify as in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources and make it notable enough for WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Also, according to some people in other AfDs hospitals are notable if they have over 500 beds and it doesn't even come close to that many. Adamant1 (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dermatology hospitals are very unusual these days. None left in the UK. This is clearly not a local hospital. It's a national centre, enormous by dermatology standards, possibly the biggest left in the world, and almost certainly notable. Its clear that there are outreach services across the country. There will be articles in Punjabi and Urdu. Yes there are mentions in articles about skin diseases. Where else would you expect to find them? The idea that over 500 beds makes a hospital notable would only apply to general hospitals. Rathfelder (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the Express Tribune article cited just above, I also found a Dunya News article about the hospital. It appears to be very widely used, with 4,000 outpatients visiting daily. I think the "500 beds" applies to inpatient care; this hospital seems to mostly provide outpatient services. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since it's a made up standard in the first place I don't see why you can't make up that it only applies to places that provide inpatient care. Even the standard is made up, I still think the number of beds is relevant to places that provide outpatient services though, as a judge of the facilities size. The number of people who visit it daily is ultimately inconsequential and meaningless to notability. Way more so then the number of beds would be if it was an actual notability standard. Just like the number would be inconsequential and meaningless to notability for how many people shop at my local Walmart per day, how many people visit my local doctors office per day, the number of students a community college has per semester, how many tourists visit an area per season, how many birds migrate to geographical location per year, how many cars drive down a road per year, how many sandwiches a restaurant makes per week, how many games are played at a stadium per season, etc etc. But hey, since your just making it all up on the fly anyway I'm sure all those things would be acceptable as standards for notability also. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I am basing my keep vote on the coverage in the Express Tribune and Dunya News articles. Your theory about the importance of the number of beds in primarily outpatient facilities is noted. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your the one that brought it up. I have zero issue with the sources. Except maybe Express Tribune is a little weak sauce IMO, but I'll leave that up to others to decide. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:25, 9 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.
Keep I have added a 2019 South Korean newspaper citation [1] that details the 1987 opening of the line as an extension of the Cheonlima Line to the page. Also, this map [2], used on the same article for the Korean Wikipedia and for Pyongyang Metro shows the line in yellow, albeit seeming to be an extension of the Hyoksin line. Perhaps that confusion needs to be cleared up, but either way, the Mangyongdae extension line certainly appears to exist. And, I cannot make out the pictures presented above by the nominator for proof either way.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bonnielou2013, Chinese sources say only two line exist [3]. Also map attached has an error. Tram Line 1 no longer travels over the Taedong River. Other Chinese sources present the so called 'mangyongdae line' an extension of the Chollima line that was opened in 1987. The image of the routes in the second link posted above shows that the two lines are labled in different colours, and there is no third colour for any other line. This name may only refer at most to this section and not an entire line Gorden 2211 (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chollima Line: If this is an extension of the Chollima Line, and the article on that line is a stub, that doesn't provide justification for splitting the line into 2 articles. Username689218:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, only because the line is not marked on a offical map. [4] But keep the info that they might be separate lines, like Daxing line and Line 4 on the Beijing subway, as there are sources dated to 2000 supporting it. [5]Techie3 (talk) 01:14, 10 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.
Keep Long history as a VO actor and supporting player overall. Once again, just because they've never been in the 'starring' part of a film/TV open does not clinch an automatic delete. Nate•(chatter)01:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I pointed out when I deprodded the page, the subject has won 11 awards and been nominated for 2 more, according to IMDb. pburka (talk) 15:45, 8 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 list appears to be WP:original synthesis of a few published figures, and I don't see how it the satisfies Wikipedia's notability guideline. There don't appear to be any third-party reliable sources dedicated to HDI in Thailand divided by the four-region system. Paul_012 (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The paper is a primary source by the creators of the data, so it doesn't contribute to establishing notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which only reproduces the data without providing any independent in-depth coverage about the grouping, so it doesn't help establish notability for Wikipedia's inclusion purposes. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A look at Category: Human Development Index shows that we have dozens of articles about individual countries’ HDI by region, sourced to the single authoritative source of the data. There will be other sources discussing this, but the complete and reliable data is in the single source provided. There are certain kinds of article (e.g. election results, season results for sports teams) where it is normal for us to rely on a single source. Mccapra (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Regions of Thailand, where there's already a section on regional economic disparities; this one can be easily turned into a section on regional HDI disparities. No need to have a separate article for every imaginable regional comparison. In fact, it would probably be easiest for the reader, anyway, to have all comparisons in the same article, perhaps as a table sortable by whichever factor they wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:10, 11 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.
Does not pass WP:GNG. Regarding WP:NFOOTY, he has played in the Ivory Coast (not professional), Morocco (before they became professional in 2011), Syria (after they "lost" their professionalism in 2011), and Gabon (not professional). He has also not played for any senior national team. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he fails NFootball, because despite years of play in top professional African leagues, there isn't the money in African football for the entire league to be fully professional. Yet he's played on top teams, playing in at least 3 different CAF Confederation Cups for at least 2 different teams. He's played on 3 different top teams in both Gabon and Ivory Coast - yet I don't find one iota of local coverage - it just doesn't seem to exist on the Internet, and I find no newspapers archives. But I do find international coverage for this period for him, especially because in one game he scored 5 goals in a record setting CAF Confederation Cup victory. Also he had national caps for the Ivory Coast in the 2009 African Nations Championship but before FIFA started to consider the teams as being full internationals. I've added some references. Nfitz (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I improved the article further, adding in his appearance for tournament-winning Ivory Coast in the 2008 UEMOA Tournament, where he scored a goal in the final. I've also found evidence he appeared for the Morocco team into 2011 - just before the league was considered fully professional (starting in 2011-12). What I can't find is Gabonese media ... period. Can someone suggest a good source of Gabonese newspapers archives ... otherwise I think we have systemic WP:BIAS issues here. Nfitz (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the efforts at improving and potential difficulty of locating Gabonese sources, I am giving this a third relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless GNG-level sourcing can be found, this ought to be deleted. I doubt there will be significant coverage in any Gabonese media, given that none could be found in Ivorian, Moroccan or Syrian media, though I'm happy to change my vote if there are good sources. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there isn't the sourcing needed for him to pass WP:GNG. Which I don't see changing any time soon. It's unfortunate, because maybe it could be systemic bias (although I doubt it), but we still have to follow the notability guidelines if it is. There's really no way to prove that's why he's being covered anyway though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. The only online coverage of him consists of match reports which only indicate he appeared in the matchday squad (e.g., [6]). There is nothing in-depth or that suggests this article could ever be GNG-compliant. Jogurney (talk) 16:06, 10 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.
This article, which has been notability tagged since 2009, doesn't seem to meet the continuing coverage requirement of WP:NEVENT. All of the information I can find on this is from 2008, although I'm getting a lot of noise from other avalanches in this area (there seems to have been another fatal avalanche in that area in January 2008, which is causing noise in the search engine). See WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE, this doesn't seem to have garnered coverage outside of the brief period after the accident. Hog FarmBacon14:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the age of the article, I am relisting rather than closing as SOFTDELETE
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:14, 7 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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Fails WP:GNG and seems WP:TOOSOON for this duo. The Knowledge is the newsletter of their local community, and the article was written by... er, the duo's brother. The links to the BBC pages only show an artist page and no indication that there was anything more than a single play on their local radio station. They may be notable enough for an article one day but right now I can't find any information that demonstrates notability. Richard3120 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete band and album per WP:TOOSOON. The first source in the band's article is a local fanzine blurb written by their brother, and the second is from a friendly fan's blog. I can find nothing else beyond the usual social media and self-promotional sites. Their album was just released and only appears in the usual streaming and retail services, with a couple of reprinted press releases, but no reliable reviews or other coverage. Good luck to them as they get started but these Wikipedia articles (band and album) are simply attempted promotions for the time being. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)14:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The artist article has been updated and now has more references, these include multiple reliable, independent reviews from notable magazines, and other sources. The article is sufficient enough to pass WP:GNG and is not WP:TOOSOON. In regards to the separate album article, I agree with the proposed deletion as it doesn't call for a standalone page at present. OnlyOneRaider (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: OnlyOneRaider (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
There are still no good sources for his article. EarMILK doesn't mention the band at all. The BBC playlists only indicate a single play on a local radio station. Stereo Stickman, Planet Singer and Upstream Indie are all promotion/marketing websites inviting artists to submit their music for promotion. Last Minute Musicians and Music Trails are blogs. So the only source that could possibly count as reliable is Chelsea Monthly which is a primary source interview in a limited-distribution lifestyle magazine. Richard3120 (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first source is, irrespective of its author's relation to the band, an objective article by a journalist. It's also incorrect for DOOMSDAYER520 to refer to The Knowledge as a 'fanzine'; it's an editorially-independent publication. Moreover, the recent addition of reliable, independent sources to the article – a reflection of the significant coverage there is for Perfect Soul – means it now passes WP:GNG as well as WP:TOOSOON. Davebenphilips (talk) 15:31, 10 August (UTC) — Davebenphilips (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
You joined Wikipedia just to give your opinion on a deletion discussion? And no, an article written by their own brother is never going to qualify as "objective". Richard3120 (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Davebenphilips and OnlyOneRaider are passionately defending the band and article, and there is nothing wrong with being new to Wikipedia. But this is a site with policies on who/what is included, and it is worth learning why those policies exist. If you love a band, write about them in your blog. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic resource in which people and things must qualify for inclusion. That's what the veterans are talking about here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)21:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further to my previous vote, the article has again been updated with additional notable and independent sources, this includes Vents Magazine and Urbanista Magazine. As previously mentioned, the additional sources make this article sufficient enough to pass WP:NBAND. OnlyOneRaider (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's an ongoing discussion at WP:ALBUMS about the reliability of Vents, and the current consensus is that it's not a good source. Urbanista definitely isn't reliable - the website states that it's a platform for any aspiring writers. Richard3120 (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've had a look at the sources in the article and I don't see the coverage in reliable sources that is needed. I concur with the nominator that the sources fail to be independent or reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. I think this is a textbook case of WP:TOOSOON; Wikipedia is not the place to promote a band, if the band achieves sustained notability then the article will follow. Adding additional poor sources will not help this article demonstrate notability. Ifnord (talk) 16:29, 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.
Delete There is zero sourcing provided that could establish why this Sopranos-related game is notable in its own right.TH1980 (talk) 04:18, 8 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.
Not notable. The one reference in the article is a trivial mention, and there appears to be no significant coverage online. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This comic book is notable. I am still working on editing this page and will include more references and examples to help prove that this is a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OGWLOC (talk • contribs) 12:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only independent sources are a blog (unsuitable) and a passing mention (cbr.com). All other sources, after removing other inappropriate sources, are primary. Much of the prose is an advertisement, describing where the product can be bought and how it can be paid for, Makes no claim of importance or significance. I cannot find other worthwhile sources with a Web search. Doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP, WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Although there is a lot of acting roles listed, there is no coverage I can find about any acting. His only directing role did not attract much notice for his direction that I am able to find. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
After reviewing the information for this artist he does not have significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources. Most sources were from facebook, google play etc. VVikingTalkEdits20:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the version of the article before it was slashed here by the nominator shortly before the discussion. Blabbermouth is a reliable source and RTTN is possibly but the reference that was left in was the worst of the bunch, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 7 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.
More than half the references here come from the actual creators of this advertising campaign, including press releases and promotional materials from the ad agency. Only receives a bare mention in secondary sources around the time of the ad campaign, which aren't enough to pass the WP:GNG, and creates a potential problem with WP:NOTNEWS. This article veers very close to self-promotion and trying to leverage Wikipedia as a search engine optimization tool. Jontesta (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting but sources are weak (press release, blogs, at best - very local niche media). This campaign failed to get recognition sufficient to pass WP:GNG.(Also, the article is badly focused on the fictional element of the campaign instead of the real world campaign itself).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:19, 11 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No independent secondary sources to write an article as per WP:GNG. This is very very long exhaustive list that's entirely sourced to primary sources, written completely in-universe. Even the main characters barely find any mentions in any reliable sources, and nothing that provides out-of-universe coverage to create a stand-alone article, with the exception of characters like Tommy Oliver that already have an article. This subject fails to offer any coverage that would allow this to meet the standard at WP:NOT#PLOT as well. Jontesta (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - information is notable and verifiable as it was covered in The New York Times). Although most of the plot summary can only be sourced be to the TV show, this is true of most fictional character articles. Although the plot summary can probably be trimmed a bit, this page serves as an extension of the main article (Power Rangers Dino Thunder) which would become excessively long if both pages were merged. What works for most other subject areas (non-fiction) doesn't work for most subject areas about fiction (such as Power Rangers). The information on this page is clearly verifiable even if using mostly different sources and sourcing standards than ones used for non-fiction and many of the problems with the Power Rangers articles were corrected years ago. This is one of those cases where a literal word for word interpretation of policy and guidelines is harmful and takes away from (not further) the project's aims. Rules exist for a reason, but that doesn't mean any subject area that's clearly verifiable and notable should be reduced to almost nothing all because of a literal word for word mechanical (overly strict) interpretation of policies and guidelines.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:43, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails completely to show notability and nothing after a search shows sources to meet notability. Creator has removed prod tags, so AFD is the only option now. Ravensfire (talk) 19:49, 7 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment - the cricket project know precisely where to find a second source if need be. However, these sources alone are being subject to much debate elsewhere than this. A single AfD article which can be easily fixed is not the right place to be having hundreds of AfD debates all at the same time. It is not the "single source" debate which is up for question right now. Bobo.19:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep only because these conversations are being had elsewhere. Carrying out these same conversations in thousands of different AfDs is not the right thing to do. WP:CRIC members, can we work on our merging-related compromises before we go through all of this a thousand more times, then batch them together for potential merges if necessary? Bobo.20:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The business of Wikipedia cannot be put on permanent hold until WP:CRIC chooses to get its act together. You've been debating this for over two weeks now, and this has been an issue for years. (And what the heck, with a new, tighter guideline, there'll be hundreds of AfDs, prods, redirects and mergers anyway.) Indeed, it seems to be hard to compromise on new criteria, but if you'll allow me some unsolicited advice, participants turning their attention to doing so would be far more productive than incessant complaining about how the nasty, nasty deletionists are ruining the project and how can anything possibly be done? Ravenswing 01:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sixteen years rather than two weeks. An AfD is not the time or place for a conversation like this. "Complaining"? No. Frustration, yes. I wish these things had been decided upon 11 years ago before I did this. In any case, that wasn't really the context of my argument here. There were two conversations going on at the same time with regard to what we should do when articles met brightline criteria but people wanted to delete anyway - whether standalone lists needed to be created in places where they do not yet exist. Of all places, this is not the place to have this conversation. I stand by my belief that List of X cricketers should exist for all teams anyway. Bobo.07:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary sources do not lead to GNG passing. Yes, this will be thousands of articles because we have an absurdly broad notability criteria for cricket, but there is no reason to let proceduralism keep in place articles that clearly fail notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we're trying to work out on some kind of merging compromises on WT:CRIC.. It's easy to say "the criteria are too broad", it's harder to suggest new criteria to be adopted. Feel free to add your tuppence worth there if you have better ideas. Bobo.21:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Context of User:Bobo192's argument here [7], [8], [9]. I am no fan of the sport and don't edit cricket articles, but prima facie, from WP:NCRIC, I think, we can't have standalone stubs like these. So the only options are either delete or merge/redirect. (Closing admin, please discount my comment as a vote of any sort). - hako9 (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Himachal Pradesh cricketers would be my preference. We have tow matches played, a name and style of bowling only. In those circumstances I'm not expecting that we'll find anything else about the chap anytime soon - but if we do then it's easy to re-create the article and add the substantial sources. This is along the lines I tend to argue in these circumstances (see the links hako9 provides above). I could live with delete, but a merge/redirect seems a much more effective way to deal with the chance that someone, somewhere in the world finds some substantial source about him. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:55, 8 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.
Fails WP:NALBUM. The one genuine RS in the article is a primary source interview with the festival's promoter, so not independent, and more importantly, nothing to do with the album itself. And although Prog Archives is a long-running website, it's a community blog and not an RS, with the review coming from a contributor. Richard3120 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The is an album article but it tries to cover the festival as well, which is already a mistake. (Though the festival was from pre-Internet times, I did manage to find this article from the period: [10], and a few Google Books results in which it appears briefly in various lists of 90's events.) Since we are discussing an apparent album article here, we must use WP:NALBUM and the album has even less media coverage that the event that it came from, only being found at various list sites like ProgArchives, and the usual retail/streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)19:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520: the LA Times article is already included in the external links of the article, and is the primary source interview with the festival director that I mentioned in the nomination. Richard3120 (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - The article mentions the festival with little detail. It does not try to cover it. There are not many online reviews of this album as it came out in 1995. Several of the bands that performed at this particular event in 1994 are still active and it is part of their discographies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chutch15 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Chutch15 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Having few online reviews is not a problem if there are old magazine/newspaper reviews. If any of those exist they should be tracked down and named here. Also, this album can be listed in the bands' discographies as items in their histories, but that is not a reason for giving the album its own article. See WP:NALBUM and WP:RS. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)14:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article with more sources and reviews and tailored the description to be more focussed on the album release and not the festival itself. Print reviews of the 25-year old niche (but important) music festival are tough to find. I'm not sure any of the progressive rock magazines existed at that time (Expose', Progression, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chutch15 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the sources you add to your articles about Echolyn aren't reliable ones – Sonic Perspectives, Prog Archives and Dutch Progressive Rock Page may be long-established websites for fans of progressive rock music, but none of them pass Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, they are all blogs or community forums. I do sympathise with the difficulty in obtaining print media from before the internet age – it's the reason many album articles from the 80s and 90s are in poor shape compared with ones from the last few years, where there is a wealth of information online. Richard3120 (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Re-listed to allow time to locate possible or likely sources, but otherwise consensus is delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26(spin me / revolutions)18:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Chutch15. IMO, the annual event itself is more notable than the compilation album. Sources about the compilation album are scarce, but the sources in the article are indeed reliable. I found a source, which has a segment which briefly talks about the album. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎(ICE T • ICE CUBE)07:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "The sources in the article are reliable" -- seriously?? The first one is a primary source. The second is a track listing, and I am curious upon what basis "sobaworld.co.kr" meets WP:RS. The third is six sentences long (and I am curious upon what basis "expose.org" meets WP:RS). The fourth does not mention the subject at all. Neither does the Los Angeles Times piece listed as an external link in the article. Claiming that these sources provide the significant coverageto the subject that the GNG requires is, at best, fishing. Fails the GNG and WP:ALBUM.
And that being said, there's long been a notion held by some that if there's some excuse for there not to be reliable sources on a subject (pre-Internet age, say), the provisions of WP:V and the GNG are waived. This curious notion is not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Ravenswing 01:21, 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. The only "keep" opinion consists only of the words "ACUM prize winner", but does not explain how this makes the subject notable in terms of applicable guidelines. Sandstein 17:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This draft was tagged for notability a year ago by User:PK650. In January this year User:DGG first decline the submission, and now few days ago accepted it and published but without removing the notability tag (as well as the "reads like a press release tag...)? I have to say the draft process boggles the mind out of me (isn't it supposed to stop such low quality content from being published until the creator fixes the issues?), but anyway, as this was still tagged when it appeared on my new articles patrol list, I reviewed it and I couldn't find any in-depth coverage, and GScholar shows next to no citations for his work, so this is a WP:PROF failure. There are some unreferenced claims of awards, and maybe better sources exist in Hebrew? Let's discuss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I accepted, because the only realistic chance of improvement is bringing it here. I know that's not the intended purpose of AfD , but it sometimes does work. We need a solution to improveable articles languishing at AfC. (consequently, I used not to accept unless the likelihood of an accepted article was >90%, but now I use 75%. There's no formal standard except "likely" . DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: I actually think that improving an article should be a purpose of AfDs, but anyway, if you think it is needed, why not list it here yourself? Heck, even drafts can be AfD and often are. Why just move it to the main space and leave it there, if you think it is likely not suitable for the mainspace in the current form? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
{U|Piotrus}}, sometimes I do just that. For all the years we;ve known each other, I have kept experimenting with all the multitudinous options in WP to screen articles and to get them improved, and to improve them. None will ever work perfectly,; none is right one in all cases--I like to keep trying the various opt'ons. Of course not all experiemtns work, but I feel I have to keep trying. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a little digging into the list of awards, mentioned in the nom. The Leah Goldberg prize is awarded by the same university that this person attended and did his master's at. The award is not searchable on the university's website so I don't know the criteria but it doesn't seem to have its own website. The other prizes sound similarly very local, save the "Palme Académique – Title of knighthood from the government of France, 2003": this sounds like a big deal but at the time he received it, they were awarding over 7500 a year. asnac (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked ProQuest - at least at first glance the 7 hits there seem to be citations of Bassok rather than coverage of him or his works. Haukur (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a bit hard to follow (I don't read Hebrew), he is a poet, and he has received local awards, but is nebulous on the international stage. This reads very much like promotional material, and I suspect this page is the work of someone's thesis, the way in which it is scribed. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:27, 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.
Not all royal events are deserving of a standalone article. The notability of this topic is not evident from the sources cited in the article. Aside from the obituary of the bride, these sources consist entirely of blogs and short YouTube videos. Has there been a more significant coverage? Has there been a lasting effect? It is not apparent from the article nor from what I see when I Google the wedding. Surtsicna (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I do agree that "not all royal events are deserving of a standalone article," I believe weddings of reigning monarchs are. The short YouTube videos are newsreel coverage of the event from the time. I am certain there are more substantial sources on this topic. I am certain there are more Belgian sources which I shall find and include, and I invite fellow Wikipedians to do so. WP:HASREFSWP:HASPOTWP:DIVERSE
I can certainly imagine that the wedding of a monarch would attract a lot of media coverage. Still, it is the coverage that proves the notability. Articles such as this one or this one or this one rely mostly or entirely on blogs and short YouTube videos. If better sources (academic or from reputable media) do exist, they should be cited. I do not know where to look, especially for Constantine and Anne-Marie, since I speak neither Greek nor Danish. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We certainly have our share of British royal wedding articles. I don't know, whatever yas decide on this one. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The wedding of a reigning head of state is a public event that is inherently notable. An article on his nephew Laurent's marriage would not be, but Baudouin was the king when he got married. Piratesswoop (talk) 00:16, 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.
Delete. The sources this article has are ROUTINE newspaper coverage, a website administered by her husband, and a user-generated genealogy database. No notability. JoelleJay (talk) 01:35, 10 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.
Yet another train facility incorrectly called a community. Durham calls it a locality on the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad. Old topo maps show what looks like a rail siding set in an agricultural district. Currently area is still primarily agricultural. No evidence of a community and not notable otherwise. Glendoremus (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Only legitimate "book" hit identified it as one end of a track improvement program. It's still a BNSF siding, and not a community. Mangoe (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation as to why there were (at whatever times) two post offices close together is just that; things get done for reasons that don't necessarily make sense after the fact. The historical society page is a little better than nothing, but there's a figurative quality to the passage, as there aren't actually signs by the road for any of these places; I often check, and there was one case where I did find a sign and did not nominate the place for that reason. If they had said something concrete about any of these places, then I might give it some weight, but as it is, it's just a series of name drops, and it's not at all clear that they could tell me anything about these places other than that nobody lives there now. Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places. I don't think that having a post office necessarily makes this a legally recognised place. If it isn't a legally recognised place then it has to pass the GNG and it blatantly doesn't as the only sources are passing mentions, usually referring to it in a railroad context.[12]This source does mention it as a place where one family lived, so I wonder whether that's the origin of the statements that it's a community. Hut 8.518:13, 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.
Comment As eluded to by the above comment, the nominator may need to reread the referenced policy. It is quite unclear why he should meet NCORP which applies to businesses and NPROF would seem more appropriate than GNG. PainProf (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject may have trouble passing our NPROF, but it passes Polish equivalent which considers habilition sufficient. These days I support habilitation as sufficient myself but this has yet to gain consensus on English Wikipedia. Interested editors may want to comment at talk of NPROF. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Is that equivalent to tenured professor? I would generally say most tenured professors are likely to be notable, it might be more a case of finding out why, in my experience major institutes don't tenure random people and are generally a good judge of a broad field contribution (which is a requirement for tenure), if that is also a requirement for Habilitation then that seems to me to be a well made argument. PainProf (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In countries that don't have tenure I generally accept full professorship, I actually think that is met here, Its hard to judge this one, citations might be good for the field which would meet NPROF C1, one thing I can't tell, is he a member of the polish academy of sciences or he just works at their institute? If so its a lot easier. I'd generally give academics like this benefit of the doubt, I don't know the field but it isn't biomedical, its harder to get insane numbers of citations outside those fields. PainProf (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have decided that having tenure is not enough. C1 is met only by being truly impactful in the field. Another criteria is met by having named chairs, which 15 years ago when we develped the criteria was fairly uncommon. We have deliberately avoided making it so any holder of a full professorship in the US would be notable. It is time for people to look at what the actual criteria say instead of trying to craft their own. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and we have different criteria than the very broad inclusion ones in the Polish-language Wikipedia. We apply our own criteria to all articles, we do not apply different criteria just because someone is from a nation where the Wikipedia project in the main language has applied much looser inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: I just mean normally I'll be able to find a decent reason if they have tenure, notability within the field is normally a condition of a tenured position, its a decent rule of thumb. PainProf (talk) 00:40, 11 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.
Most of the coverage the subject received is recent because of the rank scored in UPSC exam, it classifies as news (for a single event) and WP:NOTNEWS. The other achievement is finalist of Femina Miss India 2016, which certainly does not makes the subject notable. Zoodino (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Run-of-the-mill model and beauty contestant. The article says that she scored 93 on what appears to be the national civil service exam, and that she was a beauty contestant. Google search shows that she exists and uses social media, and that she was a beauty contestant and that she scored 93 on what appears to be the national civil service exam. Nothing is notable about having been a finalist in a beauty contest. No context is provided as to what a score of 93 signifies or what the distribution of scores is (but the number was probably meant to dazzle or amaze rather than to inform). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not establish notability as of yet. I am sure the UPSC is a pathway to many impactful positions on the Indian Civil services front, and I wish the best! Cheers. Ktin (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have made some changes to the page. Please take a look. She has been a real inspiration for many women, in India and abroad. Please be considerate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammybro (talk • contribs) 10:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If she is enough of an inspiration that her being an inspiration gets mentioned with significant passages in reliable, indepdent secondary sources than we will keep this article. Unless you can find such sourcing speaking of her then we will not keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 10 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.
Merge and redirect per nom. Not much more to add, Soeterman's statement is extensive. WP:LISTN doesn't seem met, with zero sourcing that is talking about Ratchet & Clank characters as a group. If you purge out the in-universe information and characters with no sourcing, there's not enough content to warrant a split from the main article. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect and when I say merge, massively trim back to just the series' recurring characters like Captain Quark, and incorporate into the series article "Character" section, which can be expanded. There is some material that seems to be recoverable here so deletion outright is not appropriate, but definitely this page has to be redirected. --Masem (t) 15:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Masem. There isn't enough third party sourcing for this to meet the WP:GNG. But there might be some hope for this primary content in the context of another notable article, if it's trimmed down and summarized to the most important characters. Jontesta (talk) 19:38, 7 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.
Hoax? This "$800 million businessman" is not listed in the Forbes article presented as a source here[14]: Ghalib Said Mohamed is, but whether they are even related is unclear, and in any case doesn't make Swalah notable. Trying to verify that he is onwer of Silent Ocean Tanzania did not produce any useful results[15], his nickname "Counsellorsaah" gave even less results. Fram (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the logs, it may be time to salt this article[16] and perhaps block or restrict the creator, who has done nothing so far but promote this. If it is a hoax, then we can do without them. Fram (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and probably salt as it's already been deleted repeatedly in various spaces. Sources don't back up its claims, and the Swahili article is only sourced by links to music services.Citing (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first ref is from Feature.fm, which is a members-only marketing platform: the second ref doesn't mention him: and the third is n Swahili, which I don't speak, but doesn't appear to mention him either. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You - Fisrt, thank u for your thoughts to my artical, i am happy for that. But i am a fresh user of wikipedia, so i believe i will learn alot while editing some pages, and also about the language the guy he is in Africa, Tanzania - east africa so our language we only speak swahili most of us. but the artical is about someone notable, i thought this might be my first artical to be approved you know how that feels.. can someone please help me to improve it. but even if it will be deleted i wont mind, because i will have a chance to improve more and do the best. ~molee 4real~ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for reviews Thanks for the early instruction about my artical. it has helped me to improve my artical more and provide more citation can anyone review and help to improve it more. please if you wont mind, it means something to me. Thank YOU. ~molee 4real~ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 8 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.
Fails WP:GNG. Article does not reflect NPOV:
Ex. "She was spotted dancing at a party by a Lebanese entertainment V.I.P. and a star was born"
Poor references -- mostly primary sources about Belly Dancing. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched Google, JSTOR and NYT for additional sources using her stage name and birth name. I only found passing references from unreliable sources and could not verify that the source was talking about Amani. The sources in the article are primary sources or not WP:REPUTABLE. This article fails WP:GNG. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 7 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment I am adding more references to this page. He is notbble actor and comedian. Kindly refer to reference section to view links from trustworthy newspapers and offcial wikipedia pages of his movies. Let me know if you need more references, You can google "Prithvik Pratap" - [17]
His name is mentioned in more than hundreads of media publications.He is winner of Maharashtrachi Hasyajatra [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunalgadahire (talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references in the article are listings, interviews and IMDb pages: I can find no evidence of in-depth coverage in reliable, independent, third-party sources that would demonstrate notability per WP: ENTERTAINER. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:51, 7 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.
This appears to breach both WP:OR as well as WP:Notability, as the vast majority of reputable sources refer to the body of water adjacent to the Somali coast as the Indian Ocean, and not Somali sea. A search for "Somali sea" returns few results for on Google Scholar [19]. Renowned oceanographers such as Henry Stommel and Bruce Warren for example state "The part of the Indian Ocean surveyed ... does not
seem to have a specific name: no one, for example, calls it the" Somali Sea "in analogy with " Arabian Sea." [20]. Additionally, it appears this POV is being pushed in Wikipedia by a long term vandal on the Somali project, majority of non-automated edits in the article's history page come via IP from a specific range linked to vandal as well as confirmed sock accounts (e.g. Felinepaw) [21]. For more information of pattern of IP disruption in relation to "Somali Sea" please see User:TomStar81/Horn_of_Africa_disruption#Example_2:_Somali_sea.
At worst this is original research, and at best the usage of "Somali sea" in reliable sources is generic and not in reference to a specific body of water known as "Somali sea", as such undue and in breach of notability guidelines. Kzl55 (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Article is a hoax, this is entirely OR. Cite 1 is "The Continuing Conundrum of the Somali Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone", cite 5 says "Illegal maritime Activities and the Threat to Somali Sea and Ocean", cite 7 says "foreign vessels stealing Somalia sea resources", and cite 10 does not use these words together at all. Cannot read the other sources but it is clear that there no so such thing as "The Somali Sea". I'd note the same user who created the page also created the German one that is now just a translation of this. Reywas92Talk16:44, 7 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.
Yeah, probably should delete as an advert. I will point out two things, however ~ like politicians, even advertisers tell the truth occasionally, no matter how accidentally, and if the claims in the article are true it may (later, if not now) meet GNG, so even if the title is salted, we should be open to a new article in the future; also, i think i've checked every reference (though i'm not completely certain) and contrary to assertion above Alkemy X is mentioned in each; happy days, LindsayHello14:10, 11 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.
Delete - I concur with the nominator, as "Bridge over Troubled Dreams" is the title of the singer's next tour, and it is not yet confirmed as the title of her forthcoming album. Meanwhile all we have is confirmation of a few songs that will be included. There is an old Wikipedia essay that I have not seen cited in a while, WP:HAMMER, which is based on the tougher WP policy WP:CRYSTAL, stating that if an upcoming album does not have a confirmed track list and title, there is no basis for a full album article here. The fact that Goodrem announced a new album can be mentioned at her article for now. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)13:37, 7 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete These regional U19 tournaments are not notable, esp. when they are played by teams below the top level for cricket teams. Compare with these examples, of full-member teams, that have all been deleted: one, two, three, four. LugnutsFire Walk with Me16:54, 7 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.
Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Almost all previous AfDs on National League seasons have ended in delete. See recent examples like this or this (and all the other previous AfDs referenced in that one). Number5712:19, 7 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.
Delete No point in 'listing' the one person with that name. And as to the claimed meaning, it is unreferenced (and a quick search suggests it may not be the correct or only meaning) and probably unreferenceable. Therefore there's nothing there to salvage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 10 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.
Article promotes the subject without establishing his notability. Sources are either poor quality or rountine coverage. Cricket Council USA, which he is the founder of, is not the governing body of cricket in the USA, so he is not notable as a cricket administrator and his business endeavours also seem not to imply notability. Overall he fails WP:GNG and the cricket project notability guidelines. StickyWicket (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's not really anything overtly notable here that convinces me that this passes the criteria we're looking for for business people. And nothing beyond that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:28, 9 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable. Website is unreachable, couldn't find any sources talking about the website winning "Golden Spider Web Awards". Even in the official website of the awards, when you check the results for 2005, you can't see this website, so that award seems like a lie. evrifaessa❯❯❯talk09:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The websites are no longer in use so it's presumably defunct. I can find no significant coverage: looks like it sunk without trace. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete According the website of the award [22], the "Best New Website in the Service Industry in Turkey" award doesn't even exist, thus they couldn't have won it. ~StyyxHi! ^-^19:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for the reason given by Styyx about the award, it's lack of notability, and because I don't see a good enough keep reason coming along to change the consensus so far that it should be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:47, 8 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 site contains user generated content (reviews), but potentially useful for verifying simple facts about a movie
just a listing showing it exists
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It might be possible to rewrite and repurpose this article as Lawrence Emareyo Foundation, because the references, such as they are, are more about the foundation than the man. However I see PR material in what look very much like SEO enhancing media rather than WP:RS. I note the creating editor has been blocked as "(Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes, likely covert advertising and sock/meatpuppetry - see deleted contribs and Omobascholes)" FiddleFaddle08:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore nabbing UPE 101 in Nigeria, almost any article about a Nigerian businessman/philanthropist is UPE.Celestina00716:14, 7 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.
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) 00:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No prejudice against recreation should someone show up with reliable sources down the road, but no evidence the subject meets the GNG or WP:BAND. Ravenswing 01:00, 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.
This is a well disguised advert. Many of the references are regurgitated press releases and PR material. This is WP:BOMBARD. A random check of the references reveals passing mentions or no mention of the gentleman If it can be rescued, so be it, but adverts have no place on Wikipedia. FiddleFaddle07:37, 7 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.
Keep as has significant reliable sources coverage as added to the article since the start of the discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:34, 7 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete This guy was not just a failed candidate for mayor. He was not even just a minor candidate for mayor. He was a fake candidate put up because the leading candidate was not a long enough term resident of Detroit to be allowed on the ballot, and this guy was put up by the main candidates opponant because his name was similar to the main candidate. This might be worth noting in the article on the election, but it does not make the person notable. It is also a long standing tactic in Michigan elections to run people with names close to your opponent in the primary to muddle the waters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This especially applies to people who were not even on the ballot. This guy was only a write-in candidate, and only a write-in candidate in the primary. That primary was bizarre because the person who won it was not on the ballot, but that man's name was Mike Duggan. Detroit has a non-partisan mayoral election, with the top two vote getters in the primary appearing on the general election ballot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates for mayor of a city, but there are no stronger claims of notability being made here and not nearly enough coverage to get him over the ten year test as somehow more enduringly or nationally significant than the norm for unelected mayoral candidates. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 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. Meets NFOOTY, just joined another FPL club, sourcing in article indicates a degree of non routine coverage as well. Fenix down (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He made nine appearances and two goals in the Copa for Ituano, which is in fully pro Campeonato Paulista against other clubs from fully pro leagues. See his Soccerway Profile. Also, he meets WP:GNG. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Das osmnezz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
This rationale is misleading at best - please see my comment below about how this cup competition is not a competition among clubs from fully-pro leagues (and how only 1 of those 9 matches would potentially qualify). Jogurney (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – several of his appearances in the Copa Paulista are enough to meet NFOOTY, and several of the sources in the external links section look like the required quality to meet GNG. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who made 1 substitute's appearance in the 2018 Copa Paulista against a club from the Campeonato Paulista Serie A1 (Novorizontino). Keeping in mind that the Copa Paulista is a state cup (not a national cup) contested by only a few of the Paulista A1 clubs and several A2 and A3 clubs, it would be a huge stretch to claim that the single substitute's appearance in the competition between two Paulista A1 clubs is enough to satisfy NFOOTBALL (his other 8 appearances were against clubs from A2 or A3). In any case, I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources, so this article fails the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:20, 10 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.
I redirected it, but it was restored. A long, 90K list of video games, released under the name of the Simple (video game series) name. But it's not a series like in a particular intellectual property or franchise, the Simple series is a line of budget titles by D3 Publisher, with different developers, different styles of gameplay and released for different platforms.
To me, it's WP:NOTCATALOG and/or WP:GAMETRIVIA. Most of these games, as they're run-of-the-mill budget titles, did not get much or any coverage by WP:VG/RS and just a fraction here are wikilinked. There's no relevant information about what games they are, how they were received, etc. It's completely unsourced right now; looking through the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I get some mentions of the more popular games, but not about every entry ever. Delete and redirect to Simple (video game series)#Development, where the most successful games can be mentioned. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK05:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I don't see the relevance of WP:NOTCATALOGUE here at all -- the linked page makes it quite clear that "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". I don't see a distinction of kind between this article and well-established articles like (for example) List of Capcom games or List of Game Boy games, neither of which include the kind of contextualizing information that Soetermans is claiming is required. If you want to argue notability of the topic itself, it's already covered by Simple (video game series), with multiple sources in that article that provide ample evidence of notability. Goldenband (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This comes off as WP:NOTCATALOGUE to me, despite the comments made by other people here. The Simple series has gone through the hands of many developers, many genres, and many platforms, so this list of hundreds upon hundreds of games is already absurdly difficult to maintain and fix. Lots of these games I couldn't even find basic information on in Google, especially from reliable sources, so what reason is there to keep this gigantic (and I do mean gigantic, the thing is 90K) list where half the entries can't even be sourced? Most sources I've seen for these games talk about the Simple franchise itself or some of the more noteworthy games (like Maid Outfit and Machine Gun and the Earth Defense Force series), so info on these smaller releases, if any can be found, can just be added to the series article. This kind of material is best-suited for sites like MobyGames and not Wikipedia. Namcokid47(Contribs)22:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sincere question: what do you see as the difference between this article and, for example, List of Game Boy games? Both are gigantic, and both have numerous entries that in and of themselves are not notable -- and that seems to me an intrinsic part of listing the works of any notable entity, which will invariably produce both notable and non-notable works. (Plenty of filmographies include non-notable films, for example, as do authors' lists of works.) Goldenband (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the entries included in the Game Boy list are notable and have their own article, which is why we have a list to begin with. What do you mean "and both have numerous entries that in and of themselves are not notable"? Both your argument and comparison are based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which in no way applies to this list page and this discussion. There isn't any useful information here that can be transferred to the Simple article, and a redirect isn't plausable considering the obscurity of this outside Japan, so I find deletion the only outcome here. Namcokid47(Contribs)15:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer, look at List of PlayStation games (A–L) and List of PlayStation games (M–Z) for examples of gigantic lists full of non-notable and redlinked games alongside notable games. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is extremely clear that comparisons to other articles can be highly relevant: "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability...and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." It's absolutely relevant that there are numerous established articles that have the exact traits you described earlier, i.e. lists that include "hundreds upon hundreds of games" and "many developers, many genres, and many platforms". If those traits are shared by an article that's considered acceptable and one that's not, then they can't be the core issue here. And remember, we're talking about a list, which clearly has criteria that are distinct from an ordinary article; in general, precedent seems to be that a list of works of a notable entity is itself deserving of inclusion as long as some of the individual works are notable, which is the case here. Goldenband (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, I cite "precedent" because, for the record, most of the established video game lists by console or publisher fail the "Common Selection Criteria" in WP:SAL, largely through sheer size (i.e. the lists are over 32K). But Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works makes it quite clear that "The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles." WP:V seems to be the real issue here, and I've agreed with User:ferret that it needs to be addressed. But neither I nor anyone else want to waste their time meticulously referencing each entry in this article without assurances that the same standard will be applied to this list as to other, established lists of works from notable entities. Goldenband (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE, per Soetermans and Namcokid. AFD is about notability, but WP:V is not optional either, and the list is fully of entries that cannot be verified with reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The effort could be put in to include reliable sources, but (1) it'd be good to have a hard percentage on what number of entries would be needed in order for this article to escape deletion, and (2) neither I nor anyone else would want to put that effort in, only to have the article deleted on other grounds (e.g. notability). Could you specify, i.e. quote, the exact part of WP:NOTCATALOGUE that you believe applies here? I'm genuinely not seeing applicable language on that page. I agree, however, that WP:V is a salient issue, though the vast majority of the article could easily be accounted for if PlayStation Datacenter is considered a reliable source (I can't find any WP policies specific to that site). Goldenband (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PlayStation Datacenter is a fansite that doesn't have any credibility or editorial oversight from reliable journalists within the industry. So, no, it should not be used for this article, and it should also be cut from any and all other similar articles. I don't know why you insist it be used when it clearly should not, you're again going by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when it doesn't apply here. Namcokid47(Contribs)18:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether the information in question is available at PSXDatacenter (which it is) is entirely distinct from whether that site is a reliable source. I made no claims about whether the source was reliable in that discussion, and specifically raised the issue of reliability in this thread because I wanted an answer. That is a very far cry from "insisting that [something] be used", and I ask that you retract your statement. Goldenband (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Video games are not my topic, but wouldn’t a list of published games be self-verifying in the same way that a list of published books is? A work of any kind is a reliable source for its own content, it’s only when facts outside the work’s “four corners” or interpretations are asserted that secondary sources are required for verification. No opinion offered on notability. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Postdlf -- I was having a similar thought, which you've articulated perfectly. Is there a Wikipedia policy that makes this distinction, i.e. between simple lists of published works (no pun intended) and other sources that require more stringent standards for verification? Goldenband (talk) 15:52, 10 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. I don't see the keep rationales as persuasive. If he popularized the term "clout" and was such a prominent figure, surely there would be sources? ♠PMC♠ (talk)14:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He definitely meets WP:BAND through rule 7. That is: "most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city". FBG Duck has over 100 Million views on YouTube, his most popular song with 53 Million views. He was one of the early pioneers and biggest rapper from the local Chicago drill music scene, a genre of music which has since gone global. His death was covered by almost every large news Network in the U.S., and around the world. As for WP:BLP1E, this only loosely applies here... as most sources cover his life, music and popularity in the Chicago scene. --Numkalcon (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is presumably because he did not have a Wikipedia page. Most people listed in the article like Chief Keef come from the exact same crew/group. Drill music being mostly a genre of back-and-forth beef, FBG Duck was from the opposite crew as Chief Keef. He was arguably the biggest rapper from that side. For some reason he did not collaborate with larger artists, nor did he do much media appearances. But anyone familiar with the drill music scene knows that Duck is at least one of the top 10 if not top 5 biggest drill artists of all times, based on not only views (100s of Millions) but also notability. --Numkalcon (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every source is seemingly about him being murdered. WP:BLP1E absolutely applies, and per above, I don't think that there is an exception for YouTube views. If even a few RS's had written him up before he died I might feel different, but dying, in of itself does not make one notable(with some exceptions of course, ala Jon Benet Ramsey or George Floyd, but I don't think there is much of an argument that FBG Duck meets that standard) Grung0r (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BAND as he only produced one EP and the references provide no further coverage of his musical career prior to his death. Also fails WP:BLP1E as the reports of a shooting, even in reliable sources, do not establish notability of the victim. Views on Youtube are not relevant, and no further evidence has been presented that he was a high profile individual. Modest Geniustalk12:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Murdered rappers will generate clicks no matter how obscure they are, and FBG is no exception. No coverage until his death, never signed to a notable label, released only one non-charting EP in nine years, and high YouTube views are a dime a dozen nowadays. Poor attempt at establishing notability by name-dropping Barry Weiss and Sony Music in the intro. sixtynine• whaddya want? •13:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. The subject does not meet WP:BAND through rule 7. Simply, the rule states he should be one of the most influential rappers - which he is not. As pointed out above, the references are basically WP:BLP1E; the subject really only received attention for being murdered. While unfortunate that his death was more notorious than his life, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ifnord (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a slim one but I'm going to create a rule as per WP:JimmyWales. Unless the addition of pages adds to a server overload (it doesn't) I see no reason to limit the sum of all human knowledge! Peace out Alexandre8 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHe should probably be put in the drill music article. For confirming the popularization of the Clout thing, I have my doubts (seems likely that it gained status because it rhymes with about and doubt, etc; 'out' is a rather unique Anglo-Saxon sound, without too many rhymes for it -- although rhyme.com lists 56 rhymes with out, most are unusable). Whether he's the unique vector of the word's current popularity I do not know, but he did claim to be. Babyinthebarn (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Band FBG Duck is an extremely important figure to the Chicago gang and Drill Music worlds, as the most notable and visible member of the gang which wars with currently popular rappers Lil Durk, King Von, 600Breezy, etc. Many references from extremely popular songs, and large social-media happenings (Google "Smoking Tooka" or look up the Trap Geek video on King Von for some wider context), going all the way back to the 2010-2012 era, cannot be understood without reference to FBG Duck. Those who are submitting this article for deletion have a very good understanding and high level of engagement with Wikipedia editing, but in this world are newcomers, with little experience of Drill Music and street culture. Since Drill Music centers on gang feuds, the original ur-feud being between the BDs and GDs from these neighborhoods in Chicago, with FGB Duck as the one side's most highly visible proponent, and since this style and these events have gone on to inspire rappers from areas as diverse as East London and Dorchester, Massachusetts, I submit to you that if WP:Band is not broad enough to capture FBG Duck's significance, then it is WP:Band which should be altered. Babyinthebarn (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alas, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of "drill music and street culture" and it doesn't matter if we're "newcomers" to the genre. In all honesty, if FBG was such a huge figure in drill music, we'd have heard of him long beforehand and he wouldn't have one mere EP release — which did nothing — to his name. He may have been a "pioneer" in a local type of music but barely a presence on the general hip hop radar. sixtynine• whaddya want? •15:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. I'm not convinced by the keep arguments - we need to see evidence in reliable sources that he was influential in drill music, not just assertions.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:00, 10 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.
Unelected political figure. Article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:POLITICIAN. Most eferences in article are not independent and do not address the subject directly and in-depth. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any independent sources addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk03:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a caveat. Virtually all the references seem to be WP:REFBOMBs unrelated to the subject, and I can't find a single source about this person. Caveat: I don't speak Tamil, and don't know how to transliterate "Samal de Silva" into Tamil, so I could be missing something. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:22, 7 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. In evaluating this discussion, I assigned greater weight towards comments that offered analyses that cited Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly the general notability guideline. The consensus within that context is that there is insufficient coverage about this topic in reliable sources to demonstrate that this topic is notable. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lummymania, I just did a check and you may want to check here [23] about copyright issues and read Wikipedia:Copyrights. The text of the article will need to be rewritten. If you can clean up the text from copyright and find independent reliable secondary sources that address the topic directly and in-depth (see WP:GNG and WP:RS). I noticed you are new, and I know creating your first article can be difficult since there is a lot to learn about notability wp:N, what a reliable source is for establishing notability (which is very different than an acceptable source for information in an article) WP:RS and writing with a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. I'd be happy to answer any questions I can and if I don't know the answer I can probably point you to someone else who can help. Best wishes. // Timothy :: talk04:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also (majority of my references) cited Politics1, which is a noted non-partisan site which also lists the Life and Liberty Party and JR Myers candidacy. Given the praise Politics1 receives from various election official across the country, I think they constitute a reliable source, and it would diminish the accuracy of wikipedia to exclude a candidacy that is listed on a reputable political information source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:D118:604A:658D:8037:51E3:24B3 (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. Sources only suggest existence rather than any notable achievement and there is no evidence of notability prior to, or during, election campaigns. Usefulness is not a valid reason to keep. doktorbwordsdeeds17:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The party does exist, and omitting it would do people a disservice. Not sure if it will be a long term political force or a short term foot note. Either way, they have ballot access and at least for this election are relevant--Lummymania (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's tagged for CSD G12 too. I can't see the deleted version, but my guess is it's probably substantially the same and a month sounds pretty recent to me. Maybe whatever admin deals with this can consider WP:SALT it. // Timothy :: talk22:42, 8 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.
Article about a song does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG - Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. WP:BEFORE revealed nothing that addresses the subject Directly and Indepth. Results show mentions of song in articles about the artist, not the song. // Timothy :: talk03:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At least in English, I can find nothing but press releases about the song's basic existence in what appear to be purely promotional publications and celebrity gossip sites. The mere fact that it was released, with a self-uploaded video to boot, does not add up to notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)13:42, 7 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 the discussion below, nomination gladly withdrawn. The points in the discussion, while not establishing notability, do give a reason to presume there may be non-trivial sources that address the topic directly and in-depth. (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk16:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE - For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". WP:BEFORE revealed no additional WP:RS that address the subject directly and in-depth that would establish notability. // Timothy :: talk02:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive Gbook references are available. His radio program launched the "V for Victory" campaign in July 1941 in Belgium, that was started by the BBC.[26]. scope_creepTalk07:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've had trouble finding WP:SIGCOV and would note that the corresponding articles in frwiki and nlwiki are unreferenced. This is the closest to sigcov I've been able to find, but I can't read Dutch. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concerns about WP:SIGCOV (mostly) aside, I think he meets WP:NAUTHOR criteria 3 and/or 4, especially 3: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. I think broadcasts of Radio Belgique count as a significant or well-known work. Or, as a recipient of the Order of Leopold (Belgium), he meets WP:ANYBIO criterion 1. (As an aside, TimothyBlue: you might think I'm being hypocritical by citing WP:SNGs when I agree with you that presumptions of notability still require evidence and do not result in a keep by default. But I think the coverage I've found, which is now in the article—aside from the Dutch source—demonstrates that the presumption should hold in this case.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCullen328 found a source that appears to be non-trivial. In addition, while the the brief mentions I and others have found don't establish notability, they do give a reason to believe there may be other non-trival sources that address the topic directly and in-depth. AleatoryPonderings brings up some points that again, while they don't establish notability, make me believe sources could well exist. So to err on the side of caution and not delete a potential good article, I'll happily switch to keep on the presumption they exist. (re: AleatoryPonderings aside comment: I always find your comments useful and thoughtful). // Timothy :: talk16:34, 7 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.
Delete this institution does not meet any reasonable inclusion criteria. The idea that every secondary school is notable is an unreasonable proposition when we take a global view and consider how many institutions we are dealing with both at present and from a historical perspective.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 7 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.
NN band, fails the GNG and WP:BAND. No significant coverage in reliable sources found beyond namedrops. Sources turn up the usual suspects: YouTube, social media, discogs, rateyourmusic, iTunes, Allmusic (but without a staff-written bio). Notability tagged for over a decade, and no reliable sourcing for fourteen years. Enough is enough. Ravenswing 01:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The band fails WP:GNGand WP:BAND. I searched Google web, news and scholarly as well as JSTOR and WP articles in other languages, but could not find a reliable source or significant coverage. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This link proves C2 of WP:BAND. However, the band still struggles with notability as their only entry on the Finnish music charts is an album that reached #29 in 2006. Problems with WP:GNG remain because significant coverage of this band in independent sources has not been provided at the time this comment is posted. WP:SNG says "in cases where GNG has not been met and a subject's claim to meeting an SNG is weak or subjective, the article may still be deleted or merged". I think this is a time when GNG should take precedence over SNG. If additional sources are provided that show significant coverage, I would reconsider my vote. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Enough is enough. Well said. I am sick of all of these non-notable bands. And who knows how many are still left since WP is full of bands. I couldn't find anything besides all of these unreliable sources Ravenswing said. (I know Allmusic is reliable, but only if the page of the artist contains a biography. If it does not, it is not reliable, just like this time.) The fact that one of their albums reached the official Finnish album list is great, but I doubt that will be enough to save the article. Sources are scant. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it's frustrating to see a lot of poorly sourced articles, but it's not the fault of this or any other band, and all articles should be assessed on their own merit. Also, Google search results are affected by the searcher's own location. If I turn on VPN and choose a US location, I get very different results as what I get when I use my own (Finnish) location. You said you could only find unreliable sources, but I found three album reviews in a major Finnish music magazine, and other reliable sources as well. The band was created in pre-Wikipedia (and largely even pre-internet) era, and they stopped touring more than 10 years ago, so it can be difficult to find sources online from such long time ago, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there has been no coverage in reliable sources. -kyykaarme (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyykaarme:, if you can post those links so we can peek at them, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination if they're satisfactory. And it could be worse, GhostDestroyer100 -- you're seeing the AfDs that Boleyn and I've been putting up, but what you're not seeing is the tidal wave of NN albums posted for barely notable bands, likewise tagged for many years, likewise unsourced. Those at least can be redirected to the band articles. (And hmm. I have a VPN that has dozens of nodes around the world, one in Finland. Might try that myself.) Ravenswing 19:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not blaming this or any other band. I just think it is unacceptable that so many bands with unreliable sources or completely unsourced, manage to stay here. This goes directly against Wikipedia's guidelines imo, and Wikipedia's main principle is to have reliable sources. No reliable sources - no article. With this being said there are so many non-notable bands and I can't believe they manage to stay here. But I am not blaming the band itself for that, that would be stupid. I get it: there may have been reliable sources, in print media (and if this band is from a pre-Internet/pre-WP era, I have no doubts they are covered in print sources, but I couldn't find them). Anyways I can't track down print sources, I don't know how to do that, but those three album reviews sound awesome. Can you please present them? I then put them to the article and then I change my opinion. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have also seen lots and lots of NN albums by NN (or barely notable) bands which also managed to stay here for far too long. That's a shame as well. There is also the following case: the band is notable but the album is not. I have seen quite a lot of that too. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:54, 8 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 article relies entirely on a single source, and when I went looking for more sources to confirm the demolition and the demolition date (I've been updating demolition category tags) I found absolutely nothing aside from one exceptionally brief mention here. Fails WP:GNG. (EDIT: was surprised to see this was the second AfD on the article, but the first one was a no consensus without a particularly compelling argument to keep.) SportingFlyerT·C01:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The structure is, was, a long way from notability. The wistful Floridian details (Monte just disappeared -- ?) are perfect for the newspaper article it came from, but not in an encyclopedia. --Lockley (talk) 19:49, 8 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.
Persistent vandalism from several Indonesian IP addresses, no clarified source material, page neglect, and most of the information could have served a better purpose on the main Wangan Midnight page. FlynnR13 (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and integrate into main Wangan Midnight page - Abundance of unsourced/dubiously-sourced content. Furthermore, the article is written in a non-encyclopedic style (WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:NOTPLOT). User:FlynnR13 brings up a good point - a short character list, focusing on just the main series characters with short descriptions, would be adequate, and could be kept on the main Wangan Midnight page. Such a section already exists on the main page and could edited to improve its quality. It is worth noting that precedent for deletion exists, with the similar case of WP:AFD/List_of_Initial_D_Characters. --2DKomplex (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not clear if the second participant is advocating delete or merge (merge and delete isn't a good option see WP:MAD)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to being un-sourced and being mostly plot. Normally I'd go for merging, but I don't think it's a good idea in this case. Since the content isn't sourced. Someone can easily recreate what's worth including in the main article once sources appear if they do without all the plot stuff anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In light of the comments above, I withdraw my proposal to merge the article in question with its main page, and we should simply delete the article instead. Given the article's issues with unsourced content, poor style and fancruft, merger is inappropriate. --2DKomplex (talk) 14:10, 7 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.
Oppose/Keep. Subject is featured in full-length articles (WP:RS) from The New York Times, Financial Times, Institutional Investor, and in print in the industry journal Absolute Return. WP:GNG He is notable for his business activity, particularly during the early-mid 2000s, but also in the 2010s, with more local-level coverage in the past two years. Minor coverage was used to flesh out the article, not to establish notability. --TardyMarmot (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like all the sources are about other things besides this person and that he is only mentioned extremely briefly in them. What there is about him is also extremely trivial. So, there isn't the in-depth coverage that's needed for this person to be notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anybody else commenting here should be sure to read the coverage in the New York Times about this person, which goes on for paragraph after paragraph, and easily exceeds the threshold of significant coverage. The Naples Daily Times coverage may not be in as impressive a publication but their coverage is significant as well and that paper appears to be reliable. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm not discounting it, but as everyone here (especially you) should know it takes "multiple" in-depth sources for something to be notable and last I checked the single New York Times article isn't "multiple" in-depth sources. No matter how in-depth it is. Adamant1 (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unclear rationale ft and nyt both in depth. Ft is also highly reliable and significant. After seeing these two I stopped - one profile maybe luck, two profiles clearly notable. PainProf (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to read the Financial Times article since I don't have a subscription. I take it you do since your saying it's in-depth? If so, maybe I'll consult you the next time an article that's referenced to them comes up in an AfD. Although generally I don't think we should take a single persons word on something when it comes if something should be deleted or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 8 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.