The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 deleted as G7. NaughtyNuggles and A Higher Authority were blocked for socking. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Coverage does not meet WP:NCORP, the only independent secondary coverage that I was able to find is WP:ROUTINE business press. Most of the currently cited sources are primary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

t — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Higher Authority (talk • contribs) 00:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Staminier is an acquisitive corporation, involved in business and the stockmarket - only two of the sources used are from the company, one of which being "areas of expertise". The links to Gatwick development has seen coverage by indepednednt non routine sources (eg air 101 etc) and its deal with Berkshire Hathaway shares make it a noteworthy situation, particularly in the light of the Heathrow issues and the expansion of Gatwick. _signed, A Higher Authority ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Higher Authority: Press releases by the company that are reprinted elsewhere are not independent sources. See WP:PRSOURCE. --MarioGom (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MarioGom: your right, but they add to the independent sources that there are, to show that its noteworthy. --A Higher Authority (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Higher Authority Which independent sources? I cannot see them. --MarioGom (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. And draftify immediately. This article was submitted as a draft by A Higher Authority and rejected multiple times. Then User:NaughtyNuggles moved the draft to the main namespace. --MarioGom (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this version of the article was never rejected, it is very different to the one that got rejected. With the previous two rejections, points were taken on board and the the article has changed significantly. There was only a 1/4 the number of references and the layout was totally different. --A Higher Authority (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. After the initial rejections you just decided to bypass the process instead of submitting for review again. --MarioGom (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did submit for review again. only this time instead of taking a single day to respond (like the previous 3 times), i hadn't had a response after weeks (possibly because the changes I made were credible?), even after going to both admins talk pages. In regard to some of the sources used; ie the press releases published by bloomberg, yahoo, businesswire ect, each one is approved (“FSMA”) by London Court Limited who are totally independent. Which means all the information in the article has been verified. Your point is valid, I get where you're coming from, my point is that since the information has been verified by an independent source we can take use this information on top of the independent sources to show it is noteworthy (eg the air101 article ect). Especially considering how large the projects are. --A Higher Authority (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are by definition not independent. For more elaboration, see the second subsection of WP:ORGIND. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Notifying previous reviewers, who may have missed the draft move: Sulfurboy, SamHolt6. --MarioGom (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do i delete my article? --NaughtyNuggles (talk) 20:56 , 10 March 2020 (UTC)

NaughtyNuggles, if after a week the consensus of this discussion is to delete the article, an uninvolved administrator will take care of it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ogre (board game). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ogre (2017 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lacks notability in reliable sources. Gaming Nexus and God is a Geek are listed as unreliable in WP:VG/S. Only Digitally Downloaded review seems like a reliable source, not enough to pass WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Ogre (game)#Video games section that is currently empty and should cover both this and Ogre (video game) as two of the video game adaptations. Besides the Digitally Downloaded review mentioned, I found a WP:PRIMARY interview on Pocket Gamer [1], an article on Rock Paper Shotgun that is weak coverage wise and doesn't go indepth about the game itself despite the text size [2] (plus only written by a contributor), and some development bits on GamesRadar+ [3] with WP:ROUTINE Kickstarter/release announcements. All in all, it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Per WP:ATD, a section that covers this and the 1986 game (no opinion on whether that too should be merged for now), is enough to WP:PRESERVE details of what seems to be a low buzz release. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm, Ogre (game) should also move to something since "game" as a disambiguator is too ambiguous with 2 video games around. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jovanmilic97: I have moved it to Ogre (board game) for WP:CONSISTENCY with other similar articles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Ogre (board game) per Jovanmilic97. The 2017 video game has some scant coverage here and there, but not enough to support an independent article. It should definitely be discussed on the main article for the original board game, though. 05:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 03:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article fails on WP:SPIP it was created in 2015 by an user who declared he/she was connected with a production company (then blanked their user page). 2 of the other main contributors have usernames closely resembling the subject of the article, none of the 3 have edited any other articles (nor this one since 2015). Requests for additional reference from a few years ago haven't provided any and a quick google search lead to little of consequence. Joseywales1961 (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Joseywales1961 (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm failing to find any coverage on the subject (apart from the link provided in the article). I therefore believe that WP:GNG is not established. She might pass WP:NACTOR, but I am unable to verify that she has appeared in the productions listed in the article—I can't even find an imdb page for her. If anyone manages to uncover something more on the subject, I'm all ears. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL - fails WP:NACTOR. I don't see any major, recurring roles. Bearian (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of references and coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 03:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. FIDE (chess) Arbiters have a pretty low profile, and he hasn't won any significant marathons. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I agree with the nominator - a search for news articles returns an interview as part of a series of a lot of participants on why they are running in a particular marathon - nothing of substance Joseywales1961 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of general notability - Ong is an amateur-level marathon runner and a chess organiser of Canadian province junior competitions, with no in-depth coverage in third-party publications. SFB 20:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As stated above, Ong doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements TheAnayalator (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. As NPOL doesn't assume notability for city councillors, the applicable standard for this article is whether the subject has enough media coverage to support an article, per the GNG. The consensus here is that the coverage is all either too local, or not reliable/independent enough to meet that standard. The size of the city in question is irrelevant in establishing whether the coverage is significant enough to establish notability. – bradv🍁 06:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPOL, and I could not find any significant coverage from media sources not in Houston, TX. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)*[reply]

• Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:NPOL. Houston being the 4th largest cities in the U.S. and a prominent international city should allow for municipal councilors to have their own articles. The 3 bigger cities above it LA, New York, and Chicago all their city councilors have articles. Theres even smaller cities like San Diego, San Francisco, Boston, etc. that's councilors have articles. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless somebody can significantly improve the sourcing. Even in major cities where the city councillors are eligible for consideration under WP:NPOL #2, they still aren't entitled to park their notability on primary sources or blogs — a city councillor gets an article when he or she can show enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG, not just because he or she has a "staff" profile on the city council's own self-published website about itself. It's real coverage in real media or bust, even in Los Angeles and New York City and Chicago. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: what about WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN? If you go look at articles for city councilors of other major cities the content and sourcing is just as bad or worse. For example, Vivian Moreno and Michael Scott Jr.. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were the article creator. You don't get to use the garbage sources to start the article, and only start showing acceptable sources in the AFD discussion after the article gets challenged — if you want the article to exist, then it's your job to use the good sources from the start, not anybody else's job to do your homework for you. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that I personally should have started the article on a better note using better references, but that's beyond the point. This article should not be deleted because the subject is notable and there is significant coverage. Can you at least agree to keep under the WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST policies? I started the article planning to improve it and hoping that other Wikipedians would also improve it, isn't that what Wikipedia is all about?Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - here are some WP:NEXIST sources that prove significant coverage and notability.[4] [5] [6] [7][8] [9] [10][11] Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's break those down:

• TexasGOPVote is local coverage, non-notable, and non-independent
• KHOU is a local Houston station, and the article is not significant coverage. The article is about Marcel McClinton and only makes a passing reference to Kubosh.
• Houston Press is a local paper with a circulation of under 50,000
• Houston Chronicle is local, and that is an opinion piece
• News4SanAntonio isn't exactly local (although it's less than 200 miles away and in the same state), but it's not significant coverage. The article is about Marcel McClinton and only makes a passing reference to Kubosh.
• Bay Area Houston is local, and it's a wordpress blog, not a reliable source.
• OutSmart is local ("a monthly publication serving Houston's LGBT community"), and it's not significant coverage of Kubosh (he's just mentioned in one sentence and has a single quote in the article).
• Fox 26 Houston is local.

None of these qualify as national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLOUTCOMES states that councilors of internationally prominent cities are notable enough to have their own articles. His role with local sources and one semi-non local source is enough alone for him to have an article. If you go look at almost every Chicago, LA, San Francisco, etc. councilor you will see that almost none have national or international sources. However, the reason they aren't deleted is because they are councilor of prominent international cities. The quote you gave above national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role is only meant for politicians thats office would not ordinarily be considered notable. Kubosh's office is considered to be notable under POLOUTCOMES; therefore, international or national press coverage is not a requirement. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLOUTCOMES never states that councilors of prominent cities are notable, it just says that precedent has tended to favor keeping members. Using a statement like that to infer notability is circular reasoning. Read the top of that page: This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones . . . Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. It goes on to say Avoid over-reliance on citing these "common outcomes" when stating one's case at Articles for Deletion. While precedents can be useful in helping to resolve notability challenges, editors are not necessarily bound to follow past practice. When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources. The semi-non-local source is the definition of trivial coverage, as it's a passing reference in an article about someone else. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kubsosh has multiple independent sources, they may not be national or international, but they are secondary sources. WP:NPOL (the actual guideline) never states that he needs international or national sources. We should stick withe the precent on this because Houston is a very prominent international city. This article would have been an easy keep if you replaced every instance of "Houston" with "Chicago" even when the 2 cities are pretty much the same in prominance. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete none of the sources presented are the type of outside news coverage forcused on Kubosh we would need to show him as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not every single source about him there are more WP:NEXIST sources. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete when challenged, article creator is not able to name any significant coverage in national and international sources beyond the expected. But they do name a whole list of sources that don't help. I'm not finding anything either. Nothing presented here is an indication of notability. buidhe 12:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of local sources from the Houston area covering Kubosh. International or national sources shouldn't be required for council members of prominent cities like Houston. Kubosh literally is a representative for over 2 million people (he's an al-large member). The quantity and quality of sources on Kubosh are on par with all other council members of internationally prominent cities bigger and smaller than Houston. The best thing to do especially in this case is stick with precedent. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . – bradv🍁 06:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unable to see why this is notable; not every SDK is notable and the source does not indicate notability JMHamo (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. JMHamo (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. JMHamo (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. A rename to a more encyclopedic title (Sock odor, perhaps?) may be warranted. BD2412 T 03:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Frivolous, trivial, over complex article, with very niche content. Possible violations of WP:GNG and WP:Unencyclopedic subject. Very few sources are directly about content Groiglery1217 (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as absolutely frivolous, though it did get a laugh out of me. Maybe it can go on WP:DAFT. WPancake (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not think this belongs in an encyclopedia, however I see the effort it took to write and source. I hope that the author redirects this skill to cover relevant topics. Wm335td (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is well-made and can stand on its own feet as notable and distinct enough to not warrant a merge to Sock Thepenguin9 (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thepenguin9: I don't think that just because an article is well-made it deserves to stay. Under that logic, I could write a lengthy article about the school I went to when I was 8, and it wouldn't be deleted. Groiglery1217 (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I see quite a few reliable sources in the article that are directly about the subject:
  • Kent Mensah (21 June 2010), "Smelly socks to fight malaria", Africa News
  • Chamila J. Denawaka, Ian A. Fowlis, John R. Dean (18 March 2016), "Source, impact and removal of malodour from soiled clothing", Journal of Chromatography A, 1438: 216–225,
  • Active Interest Media, Inc (Sep 1998), "Toxic Sock Syndrome", Backpacker, 26 (171): 24
  • "A New Solution Found for Dirty Sock Syndrome". The Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration NEWS. Retrieved 2010-07-09.
  • "New Invention Creates Odor-Free Socks, Infection-Fighting Scrubs". University of California. 2000-10-03.
  • Moskvitch, Katia (July 7, 2011). "New solution can help 'permanently get rid of germs': A new anti-microbial treatment that can make clothing - including smelly socks - permanently germ-free has been developed by US scientists". BBC News. BBC. Retrieved July 7, 2011.
  • Dixon, Robyn (August 14, 2011). "Smelly socks could help curb malaria". Los Angeles Times.

It's a subject that sounds funny, but things that sound funny can be notable too. I think there's enough here to demonstrate notability. Concerns about the article being overly complex and trivial should be resolved by normal editing. -- Toughpigs (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Toughpigs: Yes, I agree that some things in the article are notable, but, I think it would be better just to split this article's information among multiple articles: ex, the stuff about fighting malaria could go in the Malaria article, etc. Groiglery1217 (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. but it might be sensible to changethe title ti something like "Sock odor" DGG ( talk ) 10:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, certainly enough properly sourced stuff here to make an article. I agree with DGG that a name change would probably be a good thing. And I want to know how (see article photo) how one can tell that the socks in the pic are smelly?TheLongTone (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the prvious AfD discussions, amend to Merger to foot odor>TheLongTone (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • As the nominator, I would be fine with a merge. Groiglery1217 (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a classic WP:ODD article. I would not oppose a move or merger, but the content and sources are acceptable for our encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP There is ample coverage specifically about smelling socks such as what I added to the article the first tmie it went to AFD. [12] It still passes the general notability guidelines and is clearly a notable topic. Dream Focus 10:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are many aspects to this topic but being "overly complex" is not a reason to delete. The aspect of combatting malaria is not trivial; it is quite significant as that disease kills over 400K people every year. The title of the article is fine per WP:COMMONNAME and, per WP:EUPHEMISM, we should not disguise this with a more pompous title – "Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

this doesn't appear to be a notable show based on the fact that every single article I can find about it is primary or a press release (or paid for opinion pieces from Entrepreneur/Forbes like publications.) Praxidicae (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Until it actually airs on a television network which doesn't require you to decode how to watch it in the first place, it has zero WP:N to be found (and the so-called 'mainstream studios' are pretty much investors in other studio projects, not actually producing anything). Nate • (chatter) 01:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 18:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the link to FICTA to show that they are a member of that organisation as well as link to an article from The Irish Times from last year talking about them- there was already a link to an independent interview with DDI linked on the page. I don't expect this page to be a long page but I think it qualifies for remaining/remaining as a stub. Darren J. Prior (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. As part of a WP:BEFORE exercise (and an attempt to see whether there were any material sources that could help expand and improve the stub), I had a look in the Irish newspapers of record (Irish Independent and Irish Times). I could find next to nothing. A search on the Irish Times website returns a few results, including the only non-primary source we see in the article itself. But all are largely trivial/passing mentions in news coverage or magazine-style entries about other topics. And "letters to the editor" type things. Same goes for a search on the Irish Independent (two results, one also a "letter to the editor" type thing). None of this coverage is primarily about the subject organisation, and none of it meets the expectations of WP:ORGDEPTH. I am not seeing how this organisations meets the project's notability criteria at all. Delete. Guliolopez (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there were no references for RFI apart from their website I would have thought that being the only national federation of Reiki members in Ireland would merit there being a Wikipedia page about them. Darren J. Prior (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 01:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. fails GNG. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 01:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Even if a politician fails NPOL, they can still have an article by virtue of the GNG, as per the consensus here. – bradv🍁 06:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Campa-Najjar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Still fails WP:NPOL. Specifically oppose a redirect and request WP:SALT. John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep failing to meet WP:NPOL is literally irrelevant if the subject meets WP:GNG as this one unquestionably does. Nominator fails to understand basic wikipedia policy related to notability. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:GNG, more than adequately sourced. Caro7200 (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Clearly meets GNG. I'll comment further is there is any resistance. Trackinfo (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has almost 50 sources. That already says WP:GNG has clearly been met. Watch sources disappear soon. So he's a failure of a politician, because he didn't win the 2018 election and only won the 2020 primary by 13 points. Forget WP:NPOL. Before he ran for office, his op eds were published by the San Diego Union-Tribune, The Washington Post, The Hill and three different times by NBC News. You have got to have some serious notability to get published in those publications. Take the smallest of these sources; an editor at the Union-Tribune is a personal friend. If I were to ask him to publish one of my op ads, he'd laugh in my face. I don't carry the clout. NBC has had reporters not last long enough to get three bylines. After working in the Obama White House and with the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Campa-Najjar had it back in 2016 and 2017, before the media imposed blackout caused by his announcing for office. Already, without the conclusion of the current election, at 31, he is an embedded Democratic Party insider. Trackinfo (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People don't get Wikipedia articles by being the author of media coverage about other things, they get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of media coverage written by other people. So the fact that he's written op-eds has exactly jack spit to do with making him notable enough — that isn't a notability clinch until other people have written content about his op-ed writing. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, he wrote exactly four of the 49 sources in the article. That leaves 45 others. Smartyllama (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t bother engaging, Bearcat has been beating the dead horse of WP:NPOL in relation to this page for months now... Doesn’t seem likely that they will stop even if consensus is once again against them. See User talk:Horse Eye Jack/Archives/2019/December#Your submission at Articles for creation: Ammar Campa-Najjar (October 10) and the draft version of the page [13] for more. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability standards are not "dead horses": they are hard rules. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to get a bylines op ed published by multiple major news sources IS a clear indication of notability. An average Joe off the street might be able to get lucky once . . . 6 times, never. Trackinfo (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A person's notability is never established by the extent to which he's been the author of content about other things. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the coverage is still more about the lection than about the individual and so there is not actual justification for the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Obviously meets GNG with more than ample sources. Let's not waste any more time with this. Smartyllama (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Declaring candidacy for a political office does not guarantee notability. We went through a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren McLean. I argued that – because the subject of the article was likely to be elected mayor – she might as well have a page. The page was deleted, and successfully recreated after she won the election. If Ammar Campa-Najjar does indeed win his election, he will meet notability standards. Patience is a virtue. KidAd (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didnt even review WP:NPOL... If you had you would have noticed that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Campa-Najjar does not qualify as some people because he does not meet the general notability guideline. What's so wrong with waiting until January of 2021?? KidAd (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly meets WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.” We have in-depth coverage in at least a half dozen global WP:RS and a half dozen more local/regional WP:RS. If he loses in 2021 he will remain notable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every single candidate in every single election in every single place on earth that has competitive elections can always show some evidence of campaign coverage — so if all you had to do to exempt an as yet unelected political candidate from having to pass WP:NPOL just because "media coverage exists", then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL would literally never apply to anybody at all anymore. Which is why we have a longstanding consensus that the mere existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough to make a candidate notable just for being a candidate: to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia without winning the election first, a candidate has to already have preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Bearcat we are well aware of your opinions regarding the subject article... Your refusal to participate in a discussion when the page was in draft mode was frustrating for a number of editors, seems a bit random and nonconstructive to break your silence now. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what you call my "opinions" are not my opinions, they're completely correct statements about how NPOL actually works: the mere existence of some local campaign coverage is not an automatic GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, because every candidate always has some local campaign coverage.

Secondly, I did say my piece in the draft discussion, and was under no obligation to keep "participating" any further than I already did — and furthermore, if anybody really had questions about my statement, they could have approached me to ask them, but did not. So I frankly don't give a rat's ass how "frustrated" you are by it, because I had no obligation to do anything different than I did. And accordingly, you can also take your opinion of how "random and nonconstructive" is is for me to participate when it gets nominated for AFD, and stuff it in your nearest garbage can. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. I was unable to locate any significant biographical details, except for several mentions of him regarding the election. A bit too soon. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly passes WP:BASIC, there are multiple full length biographical features on the subject in WP:RS for instance [14]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Biographical" content isn't what we're looking for. The notability of a politician is established by writing and sourcing content about his significance as a politician, not by writing or sourcing where he went to high school or the names of his family members. A candidate gets a Wikipedia article without winning in one of two situations: either (a) he can credibly claim to have preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy (i.e. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) he can show a credible reason why his candidacy was so much more notable than everybody else's candidacies that even if he died tomorrow and thus never accomplished anything else, what he had already accomplished today would already pass the ten year test as a topic that people will still be looking for in 2030 anyway (i.e. Christine O'Donnell.) They don't get exempted from having to pass NPOL just because some campaign coverage exists, because some campaign coverage always exists for every candidate in every election everywhere. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG, plenty of notable sources. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sources provided in the article clearly demonstrate that WP:GNG and WP:NPOL are met.--TM 17:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, yes, a large amount of the references in the article are more about the election that the person, but there is still more than enough in the way of Biographical references to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Biographical" references are not what GNG tests for — "biographical" references are remarkably easy to come by for a lot of people who come nowhere near our inclusion standards. If the availability of "biographical" references were all it took to exempt a person from having to pass a subject-specific inclusion test, then we would have to waive WP:NATHLETE and keep an article about every high school football player who ever had two human interest pieces in his local media about his recovery from an injury. The question of whether the context of what the person is getting covered for clears our notability standards or not is what GNG concerns itself with, not the ability to locate the names of his parents and grandparents and where he went to college. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although he lost the last election, he has plenty of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets WP:NFOOTY by multiple reliable and verifiable sources of national and regional media discussing the player and his career progress. Regarding WP:GNG - he participates in professional teams, although 2. Liga (Slovakia) is currently unrecognised as fully-pro by WP:FPL. May be fit for reconsideration. Also, the team is condending promotion to pro Slovak Super Liga. User:Otapka (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Otapka: I think you mixed up WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NFOOTY as has never played in a PL Seasider91 (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Just about enough sourcing for GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fails WP:NFOOTY but passes WP:GNG subject is just 23 years and currently playing .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - ongoing career, meet NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 18:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article seems well sourced. A quick Google News search for "Miladin Vujošević" yields 1,560 hits, and the first few pages are recent and for this player. Some look significant. Looks like a WP:BEFORE failure

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I've searched both the Arabic spelling and English spelling of this person's name and can find virtually no sources or coverage. I also consulted with a native ar speaker who agreed that this fails WP:N. It has also been deleted on ar wiki. Praxidicae (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and though I think it Should be speedy delete Mardetanha (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable, all of search results on Arabic related to his F.B page (less than 3500 followers) and his personal website. Delted on arwiki under non-notable criteria. Thanks @Praxidicae: for your great efforts--Alaa :)..! 20:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Praxidicae - why do you discount this? Or indeed the mentions in Goldberg, or his discography on the Pneuma label? Or the posters of him as a featured artist in the Moroccan classical music festivals. Was the native Arabic speaker an expert in classical Moroccan music? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because two native speakers of the language it's in say it's not good enough and it appears to be simply a listing of his appearance and not coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do the speakers of Arabic have any interest in classical Moroccan music? This is an artist who is also known outside the Arabic world for four albums of the Said Belcadi Ensemble on Paniagua's label Pneuma. And how is "mais aussi le chanteur tangérois Said Belcadi, grand maître du Madih et du Samaa" not coverage? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was bit hesitant about possible systematic bias but since the article has been deleted from the Arabic Wikipedia for being non-notable then the concensus is very clear here. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Possibly played professionally for the Nebraska Danger, but IFL players are not covered by NGRIDIRON. Non-notable college football career for Division I-AA/FCS Hampton. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I'll even support SPEEDY on this one. The three references on the page do not mention the subject. Hoax? Mistake? Take your pick, but a clear violation of WP:BLP.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Paulmcdonald: The article was created 13 years ago, I think it's just linkrot. The NFL.com link works and verifies this is at least a real person. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That could be.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Some coverage found (e.g., here and here), but not to the extent needed to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we really need to do better at stopping the creation of these articles on people before they play in a professional game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG, per Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. WP:NOTNEWS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Cleveland shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTNEWS TheLongTone (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as information is still being released. This was a mass shooting with 18 casualties (casualties count injuries and deaths). I think it should deserve to stay, with massive expansion of course. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Massive expansion depends on interest in this incident lasting beyond the news cycle. The guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (events) says, don't rush to create articles. Unfortunately, mass shootings are an almost every day event in the United States. So far, this shooting rates a mention at List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020 but little more. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to date, this shooting has the most casualties of any 2020 mass shooting in th United States. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As this year is only 20% through, that's not that big a distinction, especially from the lasting coverage perspective. 17 wounded in a gang-related fight isn't a guarantee of non-routine reliable source interest. In most other developed countries, an incident like this might be shocking. In the United States, this level of gun violence is a fact of life and borderline WP:DOGBITESMAN without evidence that it changes anything. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that all the coverage dates from March 8; if this was particularly significant I would expect ongoing coverage. Of course, this event could be the tipping point leading to sensible gun laws in America, but holding my breath I am not.TheLongTone (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Despite the large number of people injured, this is a routine news event. The fact that searching Google News for "2020 Cleveland shooting" brings up two separate shootings ([15], [16]) in Cleveland that have occurred since this one (and this one only happened three days ago) kind of proves that. At present, the event fails each of the criteria at WP:EVENTCRIT, and that seems unlikely to change. The fact that this is currently the shooting with the largest number of casualties in the United States in 2020 is an arbitrary distinction and does not confer notability. Surachit (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS. Analog Horror, (Speak) 20:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sadly, this is WP:MILL lately. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - Keep the article history, or merge to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020#List in order to maintain the article history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS. DavidLee200 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Artificial nails#Types. Tone 11:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It may well be possible to write an encyclopaedia article on this subset of artificial nails. This is not it. It reads as part personal essay and part HOWTO, and the sourcing is terrible. Guy (help!) 16:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:OR. --BonkHindrance (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:AFDISCLEANUP and I have cleaned it up. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Thjarkur: Thank you for cleaning it up, but I don't see how this warrants a separate article from artificial nails. --BonkHindrance (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It may not quite fit to redirect it to a section there since gel nails are both used for gel nail polish (Nail polish § Gel) and artificial nail extensions. No opposition to a merger if someone finds a solution that covers both cases. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Thjarkur's improvements. The nominator said "It may well be possible to write an encyclopaedia article on this subset of artificial nails. This is not it." Now this is it. Clearly notable with good sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to artificial nails, absolutely no need for a separate article. TheLongTone (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Artificial nails#Types. No need for a content fork on this subject. Hog Farm (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge merge article to artifical nails, as per above comments Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 12:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not a notable individual. Sourcing fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NPOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep clearly notable, seems WP:BEFORE was not done prior to this nomination, there are many WP:Reliable sources cited in the article in which the subject has significant coverage and many more can be found (many google news sources).Polyamorph (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

changed from speedy keep to keep. Polyamorph (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Polyamorph, BEFORE was done. I was not impressed. Most of them are insignificant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet sources with significant coverage do exist and not just for recent events. They're not hard to find.Polyamorph (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polyamorph, correction: sources with WP:ROUTINE coverage are not hard to find. I don't see any significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a great deal of routine coverage. But there are also multiple reliable sources from 2015 to the present day, some of which have been provided in this discussion (notably Independent and NBC), that do represent WP:SIGCOV. I feel there is enough to satisfy WP:GNG, although Rosguill WP:NOPAGE leaning is not unreasonable.Polyamorph (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I haven't searched for sources online yet, so I am not voting just yet. However, I do disagree with the statement above that many of the already-cited sources have significant coverage. Coverage cited in the article consists of interviews in student publications and routine political candidacy press. The only citation that I see so far that clearly contributes toward GNG is [17]. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's fair enough if you don't like the interview sources, though I would say some are reliable sources, but nevertheless the NBC source is certainly reliable together with the Independent. Coverage in other reliable sources includes: Inquirer, South China Morning Post, another NBC article from 2015. This is by no means exhaustive, just a few examples. Demonstrating long lasting coverage around the world. Polyamorph (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on the NBC piece, I saw that it was election coverage for the subjects' failed congressional run and mentally wrote it off. I see now that it did have enough biographical information that it can be considered nontrivial. I'm still not thrilled that the available coverage is either 1) borderline ROUTINE election coverage for a failed attempt to become the youngest US congressperson, 2) interviews or 3) glancing coverage that's much more about Bernie vs. Biden than it is about the subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, having searched for sources online now, while there's a flurry of recent coverage, virtually all of it is about a Twitter skirmish related to the 2020 election. I'm leaning toward a WP:NOPAGE decision, perhaps integrating coverage about her into a section of Bernie Bros or a similar article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Lots of sources including NBC and the Independent. Other reliable sources not included include Fox News and The Philadelphia Inquirer. Has done a lot and works for Biden’s campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B017:11DB:60A9:FBEB:BBB1:C121 (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable political figure. Other sources include [18] [19] [20] ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable and quite involved with the 2020 election and other political events in the foreseeable future.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG Rosguill see also in-depth article in 2020 Vanity Fair. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I had already seen that source; it provides extremely detailed coverage of a Twitter kerfluffle with unclear long-term consequences. I maintain my WP:NOPAGE position, which is distinct from arguing that it doesn't meet GNG; if we were to follow secondary source's coverage of the subject when writing an article, we'd end up with an article almost entirely about said Twitter drama, which I don't think makes sense as a standalone article that is ostensibly a biography. IMO it makes much more sense to cover that incident in the context of existing articles about the 2020 election and related culture wars. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failure of WP:GNG is the rationale of this nomination, so the deletion nomination fails if this is shown not to be the case. Nevertheless, your WP:NOPAGE position is reasonable.Polyamorph (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just replying here because I got pinged in that comment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, sorry to hijack your reply. Polyamorph (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• HouseOfChange, clear WP:BLP1E failure. This isn't about her, it's about the stir her interview caused. And campaign staffers do interviews all the time, and it is so WP:ROUTINE that none of this is reaching GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Muboshgu There is significant coverage in multiple RS, enough to write a good bio, starting with 1) substantial interest during her failed 2016 Congressional campaign including in WaPo and 2) in February 2020 her feud with Bernie Bros that was covered by the Inquirer and Vanity Fair, before her March 2020 "interview" "stir." And that stir was minimal, despite the best efforts of some partisans to puff it up into a scandal that could get some press. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely do major publications like Vanity Fair and The Washington Post write in-depth profiles on campaign staffers. It is because she was notable and significant in her own right that she received the coverage. Also the youngest Asian-American to ever run for federal office. Please do not erase that history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep coverage from several notable sources. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep several reliable sources for the subject. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable political figure. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Significant political figure who has been around for years and will continue to play a role in the 2020 presidential campaign. Vanity Fair recently wrote a profile on her, in addition to The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-congressional-kid-how-a-millennial-plans-to-make-it-to-the-capitol/2015/08/14/cec02162-3f62-11e5-9561-4b3dc93e3b9a_story.html. 13 March 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Significant political figure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:145:4380:8700:E07F:ADCB:C100:7B0F (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gurukul Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Suryakund, Budaun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable school article created by UPE sock. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. KartikeyaS (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominatorKart2409 (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A private college with nothing noteworthy about it. Fails the notability guidelines for colleges. KartikeyaS (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. Dorama285 (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reference to confirm it is accredited. Given how common degree mills are, we have to enforce some standards of quality in this topic area. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: Appears on the list that can be downloaded here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Now we just need to meet WP:NSCHOOL and such. Is there some independent, reliable, in-depth coverage of this school? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maoist Communist Party (Italy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It is a practically unknown party, there are no sources about it. Even if it existed, it would certainly not be relevant. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable, independent sources. I see a few blogs that mention Maoist communism in Italy and a couple items that look like "press releases" from the a Maoist organization but it's not clear they're even talking about the same thing. Glendoremus (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 12:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian C. Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, created by UPE sock. Did not find anything which can meet at least one criteria of the WP:NACADEMIC. KartikeyaS (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found one review of his Ironies of War at JSTOR 40106091, but it's not enough for WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR and I agree with the nominator that there seems to be little else. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep his Homeric translations were reviewed by NPR[21], also here by the Byrn Mawr Classical review[22], his translation was used for the Naxos audiobook of the Illiad and reviewed here[23], his translation of the Iliad is mentioned here in the New York Review of Books[24], mentioned here by the University of Chicago library[25]. His translation of the Iliad in particular seems to be very widely cited (probably because it was made available free online, but why it's significant isn't really the question.)--Jahaza (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jahaza, though I do think Ironies of War is probably significant; I haven't found any reviews beyond the one already mentioned (but it is old, so lots of the reviews may be tricky to locate), but I did find this mention, which is indicative of significance. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Quite a few reliable sources have been presented over the course of this AFD, so this constitutes substantive coverage. Evidently, Johnston's work has been reviewed and cited by many. Naomi.piquette (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject is a prolific translator of Greek, Latin, German and French classic works, including that of Kafka. The subject is also an author, with released works from traditional publishing houses, including academic publisher University Press of America. The article's sources, including NPR, are reliable. The subject has received significant coverage. The article meets WP:GNG and passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Good work by AuthorAuthor. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Fenix down (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article about footballer who made two substitute's appearances (for roughly 30 minutes of total play) in the fully-pro Swiss Super League. There is no significant coverage in online sources (just stuff like this which indicates he played amateur football in the seventh level of Swiss football after his very brief professional stint). The article was kept at an AfD in 2009 (I voted weak keep at the time), but none of the !keep votes focused on the comprehensive GNG failure, and the consensus that has developed over time that minimal play in a fully-pro league doesn't justify the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL when the GNG so clearly isn't met. Jogurney (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG Seasider91 (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is sources but they are very weak enough to not really overturn this decision of keeping it. HawkAussie (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and past consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient with a comprehensive GNG failure. GiantSnowman 18:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to MNL48. Per consensus. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 09:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It was redirected before to the main article of MNL48. Is the only member of the MNL48 group who has her own article. More of a fanboy-article rather than a Wikipedia article. It bypassed the new article creation process. Not yet worthy for its own article for now. Worth revisiting and open for rediscussion. Allenjambalaya (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Allenjambalaya (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect to MNL48: Article looks like it's created by a fan. Don't know if she's the most popular member of the group. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect again, as it was before. She has no independent notability at all outside of the girl band. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to MNL48, she is not notable, and the article should be deleted before redirecting to prevent another recreation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback Through A Magnifying Glass Volume I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Sourced either to non-RS metal blogs (and even then, they aren't reviews of the album, just notification of its release), sites like Discogs and Rate Your Music which only show the album exists, and the websites of various artists participating on the album. There are certainly notable artists on the record, but nothing to show that the album itself is notable, and I can't find any in-depth reliable coverage. As it's a "various artists" album, there is no redirect target. Richard3120 (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The nominator pretty much nailed the issue. There are plenty of industry listings of this album's existence but it seems to have received no significant reviews or any other type of coverage. Also, many of the article's current sources are red-herring announcements by various bands simply stating that they appeared on the compilation. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, also unable to find a single RS. Caro7200 (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and the article relies upon a single source. Abishe (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - did you actually perform a search before nominating? Sounds like you just looked at the sources present in the article?MPJ-DK (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one source is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You seeme to comment strictly on the source in the article and not the general existence of sources? MPJ-DK (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The policy, as I understand it, is that the existence of sources can go towards WP:GNG, so I would say that MPJ-DK's approach is the correct one and that John Pack Lambert's reasoning is too narrow. If I am wrong about this, please let me know. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No evidence of BEFORE; AfD is not cleanup. 10+ years professional wrestler. Meets WP:PWBIO.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously notable, Google reveals plenty of sources. WP:BEFORE should have been done and AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BEFORE. The person meets WP:GNG. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have asked the creator[26] to improve the article with reliable sources. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:PWBIO. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nothing special about company. Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. It is almost completely sourced primary sources so lacks independent sources. I left a message for @Whpq: who found and included several book sources in the first deletion discussion. Royalbroil 15:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Thanks to Royalbroil for the notification. My opinion from the previous AFD is unchanged. I believe the company is notable based on the sources I found in the previous AFD. The article need a lot of work and I will take a hack at it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NCORP. Gnews reveals passing mentions or press releases. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. The company has been the subject of several peer reviewed academic journal articles and other independent reliable sources. See the following publications:

1. Greissel, Mike (July 2001). Conveyor System Part of Company's Growth.(Electronic Theatre Controls Inc). Vol. 77(7). p. 30. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
2. Entertainment and architectural lighting company ETC (Electronic Theatre Controls) On The Move. Vol. 16(8). August 2004. p. 8. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
3. Historical Theatre Shines Brighter than Ever. Vol. 33(6). June 2003. p. 50-52. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) (peer reviewed)
4. Ebben, Aram (April 2011). Shedding light on LEDs. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) (peer reviewed)

Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any of these. I searched Google, WorldCat, JSTOR, and the New York Public Library. For some of them, the titles exist in some catalogs, but only for a random smattering of years. For example, WorldCat lists Specifying Engineer for 1975 and 1958 only. I found https://indpaintandpowder.co.uk/, but I suspect that's not what you were referring to. If you've got URLs for these, or even more complete citations (publishers, ISSN, etc) that would help evaluate the sources. Lacking that, it's really hard to do anything with them. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. I applaud 4meter4 on his great work here. Naomi.piquette (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete From what I can find, there is nothing in-depth nor significant written about this company, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per others, the company does not meet GNG/NCORP. Product reviews and trade publications don’t suggest notability. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Fails WP:NCORP. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage to pass WP:NCORP. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It was PROD earlier. But it was removed by the creator of the aricle. It seems the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is within the article creator's rights to remove WP:PROD. --BonkHindrance (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hi I do what i read and i sent message to your talk page to explain what is wrong but you didn't reply So I didn't Understand What I Should do Finally when i sent to you message again You Replied So I Understand That I shouldn't do it and stopped editing and an adminstrator remove this thanks.Ahayad38 (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable broadcast journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and has been written as a WP:PROMO. I too already PRODed this article but the author removed it. Abishe (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment reason for deletion not exist because i have Premession and any editor to remove thia templet but say why in your edit summary and i do that --Ahayad38 (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unsourced article which consists mostly of a plot summary. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 16:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 16:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 16:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator comment: Concern about sourcing has been met (by the inclusion of only one source, but still) - will await opinions on the notability portion of the nomination. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, aside from the one I added, there are other sources regarding the involvement of New South Wales in producing the film, but I am unconvinced that these assist towards WP:NFILM. I'd prefer to find more coverage about the actual completed film; possibly WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Despite searching a few times under the various titles, I still have not found better sources than those during the film's production. These do not appear adequate to establish attained notability at this time. Maybe a Soft delete is appropriate at this point? AllyD (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mrnjavčević family. The rough consensus is not to keep the article but also not to delete, so I'll go with a redirect which allows furher merging. Mrnjavčević family sounds a reasonable target. Tone 12:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I came across this article when doing reasearch about a region in Montenegro. It made no sense, but I hadn't verified whether the listed bibliography confirmed the article. It doesn't.

The biography itself is a gross violation of its own bibliography. The folklore collection Project Rastko says Gojko. A fictitious character, brother of Vukašin and Uglješa of the Mrnjavčević family. and in the article this is used as He is mentioned in Serb epic poetry as Vojvoda Gojko. It has spilled also in other articles in an attempt to give plausability to this character's existence. On Mrnjava: Bosković (2009), who is cited, writes ''Even though Pavel Jozef Safarik supported this assertion and the assumption that Mrnjava had a third son named Gojko, both Mrnjava and Gojko are unknown to the more reliable modern history and in the article this was used as Some historians do not acknowledge Gojko as being the third son, though Benedictine monk and historian Mavro Orbini registered Mrnjava as father of the three sons, supported by Pavel Jozef Šafárik.. So, for ten years on wikipedia there's an article about a Serbian nobleman that never existed. It has all the paraphernalia of a biography: an infobox with a made-up birth date (probably by an editor), general information about the historical period he supposedly lived, and a lineage. If all of the extra stuff were removed from the article, it could be summed up as Gojko M. is fictional character in Serbian folklore. Modern historiography has rejected any notion that he existed..

Delete and merge any relevant information to Mrnjavčević family. Maleschreiber (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially a hoax as described by the sources already in use.--Calthinus (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized bibliography doesn't support the existence of this figure either, John A. Fine (1994) : Originally poor, Mrnjava and his sons Vukasin and Ugljesa - rose rapidly under Stefan Dusan. Possibly the family had supported his invasion of Bosnia/Hum in 1350..--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - More than 50 sources on GBS, on Serbian language only.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link? --Calthinus (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are about 40 books listed in that link. About 30 mention Gojko M. So why is he is mentioned? In most of them, he's listed as a character of Serb epic poetry in a very brief manner. So, I ask: why does that make this article viable as a standalone? Why can't those 2-3 three lines I mentioned ''Gojko M. is fictional character in Serbian folklore. Modern historiography has rejected any notion that he existed. suffice for a small paragraph under Mrnjavčević family?--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't have an opinion on this but I will note that being fictitious doesn't necessarily imply no article. We have articles on lots of fictitious characters. It comes down to whether the fictitious character is sufficiently notable and covered by enough reliable sources. Even an argument between experts over his existence adds to his notability in a small way. Zero^talk 02:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In such a case, we would expect at least one of those thirty books to devote extensive space to him. Is this so?--Calthinus (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: I agree with you and I searched for folk stories that have him as a central character and such, but he's just a name mentioned in passing in most. I think that 2-3 lines can be salvaged from this article and be used to expand a section on the stub-class Mrnjavčević family.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A notable character in multiple fictional works. I wonder ifthe nomination was based on the confusions between someone presented as being real, who was not actually real, and a character put in an historical setting with a plausible background for the purposes of fiction. DGG ( talk ) 11:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or merge to The Mountain Wreath. He seems like a real historical character, possibly legendary, but with a bunch of mentions, through I don't see any in-depth coverage. This article needs cleanup, but probably not TNT. The lead is confusing, describing him as fictional. Ping me if there are any new arguments, but overall it seems like content to save, not blow up. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to discussion about whether this can become an article about a fictional character, but this was definitely not a real person. Gojko is, notably, a poetic invention, while Vukašin and Uglješa Mrnjavčević are historical figures.] from the bibliography of the article. ([27]) Why not merge it to the already very short Mrnjavčević family? --Maleschreiber (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is also called fictional (well, imaginary...) in [28]. But I think this is salvageable. A merge is an option, yes, but it could also be rewritten into an article about the poem he appears in; in general, works of fiction are more likely to be notable then characters and such that appear in them. I'll ping User:Toughpigs who is pretty good at rescuing such content too. If I were to vote for merge, I'd suggest the poem (The Mountain Wreath) instead of the family, through the family article should certainly mention him too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (or merge) (but without the genealogy). Calling him Vojvoda does not mean that two people are conflated, as this is a title or office, but perhaps rename to Vojvoda Gojko. His appearance in an epic poem, whether he is fictional or legendary to enough to justify the existence of an article (or redirect). I express no view as to target, as this is beyond my knowledge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - legendary character in obscure epic poems. I would not oppose a merger to an appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 12:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Mccapra (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is disturbing when an editor nominates an article for deletion and won’t explain why. Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment apologies for that I was using a tool I'm not yet familiar with. I did add a rationale but obviously not at the right time. The reason for proposing deletion is that ambassadors are not considered generally notable, and there was nothing in this article that seemed to me to be a claim of any other notability. I looked at the de.wiki article too and didn't see anything in that to suggest notability either. Mccapra (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A woman ambassador who has been posted to a whole series of countries is notable. I have added references and images, and reorganized the article. No reason for deletion that I can see.--Geewhiz (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV I have begun cleanup of the article. Reformatted refs, added infobox and additional refs. All ambassadors are not notable, but ambassadors with significant coverage are. She was the ambassador of three countries and has been an Israeli Diplomat from 2003-2017. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 12:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suzi Weiss-Fischmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Major notability concerns. Sources about the subject seem to fail requirements for NBIO/GNG, they are either in passing, rewritten press-releases, or WP:INTERVIEWS. I am not seeing anything that's both in-depth and reliable. A merge has been suggested in an edit summary by editor who removed the PROD but with no specific article. We don't usually merge biographies into other pages, so I don't see a good target. OPI Products would not be a valid target, as we don't generally preserve employees bios in company's articles. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Another WP:POINTy AfD after a PROD was shot down. There are alternatives possible, like a merge with the company. But there are also in-depth sources available, that a proper WP:BEFORE could have unearthed, like this one. The Banner talk 15:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Wikipedia:Interviews is just an essay, not a rule carved in stone. The Banner talk 15:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article already has these sources:
  • "This Jewish mom is the mastermind behind OPI nail polish" by Arielle Kaplan, Times of Israel (April 23, 2019)
  • "Suzi Weiss-Fischmann: My First Big Travel Splurge" by Debbi Kickham, Forbes (Nov 29, 2018)

I've also found these:

• • "Meet the Hungarian Jewish woman behind the world’s largest luxury nail brand" by Alex Gabinski, Jewish News (Aug 29, 2019)
  • "Suzi Weiss Fischmann Sees Tie-Dyed Nails in Our Future" by Jane Larkworthy, New York Magazine (April 19, 2019)
  • "Local Color" by Kate M. Jackson, Boston Globe (Aug 4, 2005)

She's the CEO of a company, so obviously the articles are about her business, and they're interviews, because that's how you write articles about CEOs. Times of Israel, Forbes, Jewish News, New York Magazine and Boston Globe are reliable sources. I'll add these three to the article in a Further reading section so that people who want to improve the article can use them as sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding more sources, but they are still low quality. Almost all are interviews in low outlets. Sure, WP:INTERVIEW is "just an essay", but the point is not a single source here seems to be a very good much for the GNG (not an essay...) requirement of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. What coverage there is beyond interviews is focused on her company, not on herself. Her life has not been subject to any in-depth treatment outside, arguably, interviews. It's borderline. I've seen worse bios, but I've seen plenty, IMHO, similar, deleted, as at best WP:TOOSOON. Well, let's see what others think. Notable bio, or vanity piece? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep in the business/fashion press for multiple years, coverage in Forward^[1], New York Times^[2], Reuters,^[3] Los Angeles Times.^[4] Per BASIC - If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability....

--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Forward piece is mostly about her company, not her. Sane for the LA Times. NYTimes piece mentions her in passing and is not in-depth. Reuters piece is a WP:INTERVIEW. Sorry, those are weak sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per available sources and WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added a few more sources. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article fails WP:GNG without multiple, independent sources covering the subject in detail. Article was created by Catholitics (talk · contribs), which appears to be a single-purpose account as the only edits it made were related to Korzen and the organization he founded. TM 13:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TM 13:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TM 13:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TM 13:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing stated in the article is an instant notability freebie that would entitle him to have a Wikipedia article in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG, yet the article is "referenced" almost entirely to his and his organization's own self-published primary source content about themselves rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per Nom. Article is promotional and self-published sources do not provide independent evidence to support notability. Otr500 (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTRESUME. This could have been forgiven, but in 2020, everybody knows we're not LinkedIn. I would not oppose a cheap redirect to Catholics United. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yoon Jae-yong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Turning from PROD to AfD, as there is no realistic chance that the author will not remove this. PROD rationale was: Actor has only a single, minor role in a television show that as of this edit has only aired two episodes, fails WP:NACTOR. No other indication of notability. I concur. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion as the editor who PRODed. Alex (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete: As per WP:TOOSOON—WP:NACTOR is not yet met, with only one role. I can't appraise the non-English sources, however, so I'd appreciate input from other users in that regard and will update my vote if necessary. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cerebral726 (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article has excessive detail about a volunteer fire department that does not seem to have any WP:SIGCOV. The only sources are primary sources from the Tulsa government or the fire department itself. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A department with a budget of $70.3 Million for a city of 400,000 people is not "volunteer", so I do not believe a proper WP:BEFORE has been done. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fair that I made a mistake in calling it a volunteer fire department, but that was more of mental lapse than not actually looking into the organization. Having checked the sources in the article, they do not show any significant coverage, and searching elsewhere, all the coverage appeared just to be routine coverage of fires in and around Tulsa. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

One decent review (listed in the article), but nothing else could be found (45 Ghits[29], no Gbooks hits). Company has no article, no obvious redirect target available. Fram (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete insufficient WP:RS to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, fails N Chetsford (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing enough to warrant a pass atWP:NBOOK or GNG. But I'll ping User:Newimpartial, maybe he can dig something up? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any biographical details in reliable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Galvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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