Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 23

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 25 (Wed) September 24 (Tue) September 23 (Mon) More...

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

< 22 April	24 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Carmen Luvana

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

Doesn't seem to have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and fails WP:ENT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU 00:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 24 April 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 result was keep. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 04:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

List of television series and films based on IDW Publishing publications

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN. The article has been moved to draft and declined as an AfC submission several times since its first revision in October 2019. _signed,Rosguill 23:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill 23:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill 23:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill 23:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

KEEP Its a perfect valid list article. Clear inclusion criteria. Category:Lists of television series based on works and Category:Lists of films based on comics shows how similar list are laid out. Additional references can easily be found and added if needed anywhere. Dream Focus 23:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep: I agree with Dream Focus, I don't see the problem. The inclusion criteria is clear. The list is informative and not filled with excess detail. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep since I find this an encyclopedic cross-categorization list. IDW Publishing is notable on its own. I don't see an issue with Knowledge having lists of non-comic adaptations of comic book publishers' works as long as the publishers are notable. The works and their adaptations are almost always notable themselves. Erik (talk | contrib) 23:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment a comment by a previous AfC reviewer that declined a draft of this article which I find to be a compelling case for deletion is that apparently no one has actually ever published a list of media based on IDW publications. If no one else has ever compiled such a list, publishing one is original research and arguably against WP:IINFO as well. _signed,Rosguill 23:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant. It is not original research to list any of the information in this manner. That's not what original research is. And it is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it has clear inclusion criteria. Dream Focus 00:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I think saying that argument is irrelevant is a bit strong, given that half of what Rosguill said is basically the first paragraph of LISTN, and the second paragraph admits there isn’t clear consensus. This list clearly falls in the second paragraph as Erik describes below which is more gray, though I overall agree it meets what I would want from the second paragraph. --2pou (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Like Dream Focus said, it is definitely not original research. Furthermore, per WP:LISTN's second paragraph, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Knowledge:What Knowledge is not." We would accept having a list of films and TV shows based on comics, and having more specific lists by comic book publishers seems to me to be acceptable. Something like a list of films and TV shows based on comics that feature red-headed protagonists would be less likely. IDW, as a distinct publisher, has its own recognition in sources like and and . Erik (talk | contrib) 00:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

That's fair. Given that this article was repeatedly declined at AfC I'm not going to withdraw the nomination at this time, but I would consider my position to be largely neutral. _signed,Rosguill 00:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep Although the second paragraph of LISTN is more of a gray area, I feel this list provides good navigational assistance (second WP:LISTPURP) between notable articles in an environment that is WP:NOTPAPER. It seems comparable to subcategories, and I personally find list navigation much more useful than category navigation. --2pou (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep there are pages like this and they are not up for deletion Fanoflionking 12:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep per above. Daask (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The Awaien Show

AfDs for this article:

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

No secondary independent reliable sources seem to be attainable. Due to the lack of reliable sources this Fails WP:RPRGM and GNG. The two previous AfD discussions appear to have come to no consensus due to a lack of participation (as far as I can tell). ----Steve Quinn (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. It does appear to have aired, but I can find no coverage to even hint that it was a notable show. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete I have reviewed and agree with Steve Quinn's summary of the previous AfD discussions. Like the previous nominators, I cannot find sources for this article. Daask (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Tremblay Road

AfDs for this article:

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

Just an average Ottawa street. Fails WP:GNG. BEFORE showed little additional coverage. Existing source is okay, but insufficient by itself. I was going to PROD, but I see that it was at AfD back in 2007, which even then failed to find sourcing, and kept it merely on the assertion that it was a major road. CaptainEek ⚓ 22:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete Looks like a pretty darn generic short road to me . No idea why this was called "major" or why that unsourced word was blindly used to keep before. Reywas92 18:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete not a notable road.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notability, just a description of a run-of-the-mill street. --Kinu /_c 22:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete - An average street in Ottowa which appears to have little hope of meeting the threshold of notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Sing Along

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. The lone provided source comes off as a lightly edited press release, and I wasn't able to find any other coverage online other than database entries. _signed,Rosguill 21:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill 21:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill 21:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete - I agree. While these may have been a nice part of certain peoples' childhoods, they don't seem to have any real lasting notability. Without the kind of reliable source coverage that we need to write a proper page, deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete VHS is dead, and with it these barely-bought and remembered only by 'studio stans' nostalgia cash-ins designed to keep kids distracted. Nate • (chatter) 04:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. There do not appear to be any reliable sources discussing this video series. Searching for sources turns up some sales listings, but that's about it. Rorshacma (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. can't find any reason not support nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete Nowhere near notable enough to warrant its own article and can instead be mentioned on any other of the numerous WB-related pages. No content therein nor legitimate sourcing. sixtynine 04:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable straight to VHS release. Not a reference in sight when I had a poke around either. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of public elementary schools in New York City. Sandstein 14:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

PS 197

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

A non-notable elementary school that only appears in directories or routine mentions. Per WP:NSCHOOL, this school would need to pass either WP:ORG or the GNG. I believe it passes neither. Kbabej (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to List of public elementary schools in New York City. We usualy do not have articles on an elementary school, but redirect to district articles. However, NYC apparently does not have school district articles. Additionally, there are 4 P.S. 197 elementary schools (PS 197 The Kings Highway Academy, P.S. 197 John B. Russwurm - District 5, P.S. 197 The Ocean School - District 27, and P.S. 197 Global Visions - District 12) so a redirect to the list seems appropriate. I was able to verify Charles Schmer's and Bernie Sanders' alum status, but RBG attended P.S. 238. Regardless, their notability does not create automatic notability for this article. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: For anyone interested in attempting WP:HEY, I clipped the below list of newspaper articles. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep - several very notable alumni, with plenty of coverage. Bearian (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I removed the erroneous statement that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is an alum, and added citations for Schumer, Sanders, and Coleman. None of the articles I listed above provide substantial coveage of the school, in my opinion, although the Freedom Award may represent a significant accomplishment of the school and its curriculum. I'm just not seeing enough substance in the rest of the writings, which mention the school in passing. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Redirect per Grand'mere Eugene. The sources provided (Thank you!) still do not provide sufficient depth for WP:SIGCOV. Daask (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Saat Rang

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

The sole claim to notability for this short film appears to be that it was part of the selection for a regional short film festival; AFAIK that does not suffice in itself. Substantial coverage seems absent. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete nothing online in English that I can find that helps show it passes the general notability guideline. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep Notable enough, it has a google knowledge panel too. Link: https://g.co/kgs/87RGDi

LuciferEdits (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

That demonstrates nothing; anything on IMDB does. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete Fails GNG. 10 min film that is not notable enough. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep Notable film of 2017. many offline newspapers covered the film in India during release. Noobmaster29 (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You will need to present evidence of that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. This is one of a series of articles on non-notable content related to director Pratham Sharma created by Noobmaster29, LuciferEdits. See also Knowledge:Articles for deletion/That Day Over the Moon and Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Injected (TV series). Daask (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
delete per the wise IP editor above. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hawthorne Avenue

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

Unsourced since 2004. Yet another average Ottawa street that fails WP:GNG. BEFORE showed nothing. CaptainEek ⚓ 21:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ⚓ 21:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete No assertion of notability, this is absurd. Nominator's claim of "average Ottawa street" is false, this is well below average, just 2.5 blocks of residences. Can't get much more mundane and generic than this . Reywas92 18:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- In the city I grew up in at least, Sterling Heights, Michigan, most streets were about that long and only had houses, so that would be an average street. In my current city, Detroit, Michigan, most streets run several miles, but along McCllen on the east side there are a whole bunch of streets that normally exist for less than a block. Of course I would urge someone to review all the articles we have on Detroit streets and roads, because I suspect some are not notable, I have my doubts that my own street, Alter Road is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:50k. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete back in the wild west days of 2004 Knowledge had no notability standards. Why so many sub-par articles from then have survived for 16 years is a mystery.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of notability, just a description of a run-of-the-mill street. --Kinu /_c 22:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete - An average Canadian street which has no hope whatsoever of meeting our threshold of notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Brian Coburn Boulevard

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

Just an average road in Ottawa. BEFORE turned up only routine coverage such as discussions about road construction or traffic accidents. No proof that it meets WP:GNG CaptainEek ⚓ 21:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ⚓ 21:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete Utterly not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Reywas92 19:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:50k. Small city, even if it is the capital. Bearian (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete most roads are not notable. In my city we have an article on Eight Mile Road. We have an article on my street Alter Road, but that is an undersourced article relying on one source. I have my doubts that the number of articles we have on Detroit Streets in justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notability, just a description of a run-of-the-mill street. --Kinu /_c 22:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete - An average Canadian street which has no hope whatsoever of meeting the threshold of notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Booth Street

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

Just an average road in Ottowa. Essentially un-sourced since 2006. The only things a BEFORE turned up were the expansion of a historical district on Booth Street starting around 2018, but not much else in its history. The existing reference is just a city's transportation master plan, which doesn't establish notability. Thus seems to fail WP:GNG. CaptainEek ⚓ 21:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ⚓ 21:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete - doesn't really establish notability and has no inline sources. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete Being marked as a "major collector" on a map] does not translate to "major street" and does not establish notability. Reywas92 19:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete It takes a lot to justify an article on a street. My own street has an article Alter Road, but that is because it is in some people's mind a symbolic and racial boundary. I am less than convinced the sourcing is adequate. I clearly cannot find a sourcing for the front yard murder 5 houses down last summer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notability, just a description of a run-of-the-mill street. --Kinu /_c 22:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete - An average Canadian street which has no hope whatsoever of meeting the threshold of notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Bhaskar Rao.

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

Non-notable police officer; page was created by chain-moving a draft from a user sandbox to mainspace, and the creator has a two backup drafts. The article title without the fullstop is salted. Google News gives me nothing but sound bites from the man (String: "Bhaskar Rao").
Given the article's history at the past title, if deleted this title should also be salted as well. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 21:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

delete non notable person, exaggerated claims and should also be salted considering the period was an attempt to evade protection at Bhaskar Rao. Praxidicae (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete, I thought that this article looked familiar. Fails WP:ANYBIO, non-notable police officer. Concur that this title should be salted - as well as Bhaskar Rao (IPS), just in case the editor moves the current draft to the mainspace bypassing the AfC process. Dan arndt (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that redirect out, Dan arndt; I've tagged it for speedy deletion under criterion R3. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 01:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete As I have said many time before we should go to requring all articles pass the article creation process. Not that this would solve our problem with hundreds of articles sourced only to the non-reliable and non-notability signallying IMDb. I am also beginning to realize we have a further issue with over use of primary sources such as the US census.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Note I have just nominated the backup drafts for deletion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 20:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete - The use of the period in the title is gaming the naming of articles, in addition to the fact that the person is already known to be non-notable. We don't have a rule against using punctuation in article titles because that is another subspecies of beans that we don't say not to feed to the chickens. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment - Consider adding the name to the Title Blacklist. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete: I did a news search in case the subject were to meet notability but there is nothing except barebones passing mentions at best. The page should be creation protection after deletion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete Fails notability standards and should be deleted once again. SALT this namespace as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Appears to be the Commissioner of Police of Bangalore, a city of over 10 million people. It would be hard to conceive of the chief of police of a British or American city of anywhere near this size being deleted. Whatever the history of the article or its creator, the only thing that matters is the notability of the individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. Nobody has been able to find anything approaching acceptable sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 21:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete - Nothing I can find to support notability. Those other police chiefs must have better coverage. Concur with the above suggestions of SALTing any possible iteration of the article title; we have wasted more than enough time considering the notability of the subject already. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Irving García (boxer)

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

Non-notable boxer that fails GNG. In my searches for "Irving Garcia", I could only find significant coverage for the Puerto Rican boxer, not the subject of this article. .O. 20:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. .O. 20:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 20:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 20:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete This just seems to be a weak effort to let this subject inherent notability. Fails WP:NBOX and nothing there to establish WP:GNG Sulfurboy (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete Notability is not inherited and I found nothing that shows that either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable boxer who shows no other signs of notablity. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Seems that the nominator also agrees to keep, as noted in the discussion. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Shadi Hamid

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

Nominatec based on notability guidelines DrSangChi (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 23. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America 20:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 20:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 20:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Two books and an edited volume, all of which have been reviewed significantly, looks like an unambiguous pass of WP:NAUTHOR. I added reviews to the article and added another reference or two. There are some WP:PROMO issues, and the article is still a little under-referenced. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep with the changes made by Russ. Thank you for your help. Still think article has some other issues. User:DrSangChi (talk) 3:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep. The reviews are enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Consensus that the individual is not notable under any of the possibly applicable criteria Nosebagbear (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hammad Husain

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

Non notable Pakistani architect. He was interviewed by a couple of papers when he was working for the President, but that does not make him pass GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable architet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete I was convinced for a brief second that the subject might be notable because on their linkedin they claimed to be the Dean of the School of Architecture at "Republic University College". But turns out that's a for profit school that the subject actually co-owns. Just pointing this out so someone doesn't go down the same rabbit hole as me. As such, subject fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. A couple of quotes in articles is not enough. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Speedy delete, Sulfurboy has made some valid arguments. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī () 23:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete - I agree. The only notability that this individual seems to have is via a brief political association. Overall, he doesn't appear to cross the line in terms of our guidelines for who is or isn't really notable. I'm also inclined to think that deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete per WP:PROF and WP:MILL. Small, for-profit college presidents are not automatically notable. We are a charity, not a free wen host. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Shanzay Hayat

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

non notable pageant contestant. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a notable person and here are more links: https://beautypageants.indiatimes.com/miss-world/this-pakistani-beauty-queen-is-breaking-the-internet/eventshow/52900453.cms - Times of India https://beautypageants.indiatimes.com/miss-world/interesting-facts-about-pakistani-beauty-queen-shanzay-hayat/eventshow/52926194.cms https://www.inuth.com/lifestyle/photos-these-pictures-of-miss-pakistan-world-winners-will-simply-blow-your-mind/ https://www.jansatta.com/photos/picture-gallery/hot-pics-of-pakistani-model-shanzay-hayat/111451/ https://beautypageants.indiatimes.com/miss-world/when-pakistani-beauty-queens-dazzled-in-bikini/eventshow/52688298.cms https://beautypageants.indiatimes.com/miss-world/pakistani-beauty-queens-bare-it-all-in-these-pictures/eventshow/59053176.cms https://tamil.samayam.com/photogallery/bollywood/bikini-photos-of-shanzay-hayat/photoshow/58987686.cms https://divyamarathi.bhaskar.com/news/INT-PAK-shanzay-hayat-miss-pakistan-world-2013-marathi-news-5360167-PHO.html https://beautypageants.indiatimes.com/others/beauty-queens-who-went-topless/eventshow/68935938.cms https://www.bramptonguardian.com/whatson-story/6004707-shanzay-hayat-crowned-miss-pakistan-world-2013/ Salut65 (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete Lots of coverage that basically is routine pagent winner stuff that doesn't demonstrate notability. There is some WP:SIGCOV of the subject, but all of it surrounds a nude photoshoot they did. As such, it would be considered WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@ (talk) News from Times of India, DNA India, Tribune Pakistan, The NAtion, The News Pakistan , hindustan times and Dawn are not unreliable. They are not unsourced. None of the links are spam. But you have removed the complete data from Miss Pakistan World. Do you have any clue what pageants are ? Can you see this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/Femina_Miss_India ? This page is all about Pageants in India.

Can you see their detailed report?

You removed the Miss Earth pageant from the page of Miss Pakistan World, that was all the winners who went to Miss Earth. There are over 150 pageants done by the contestants, yet only that information of Miss Earth was added. No one is hungry to add a lot, as I dont have time to look at links for the other 100 pageants. But you are removing data that is history. How come Miss India is having this data where as Pakistan cannot have the data, even though there were enough links stating that those particular contestants went to the Miss Earth pageant.

You have not done any research on pageants in wikipedia. Ask me? I can give you the help. Rather than you vandalizing the pages, when you dont have the capacity to learn about pageants and how they work. https://en.wikipedia.org/Miss_Venezuela https://en.wikipedia.org/Miss_Brasil https://en.wikipedia.org/Femina_Miss_India https://en.wikipedia.org/Miss_Universe https://en.wikipedia.org/Miss_World

Look at the pages of these national pageant. Miss Pakistan World, Mrs. Pakistan World are national pageants for Pakistan. For almost 18 years, the history of these pageants are reduced by you to just half a page. It seems you targeted all the winners of the pageant, the pageant and the organizer and deleted all the sources as well as nominated all pages for deletion.

I can give you over 1000 examples of pages on beauty queens. The winners of Miss Pakistan World have more links than any of these beauty queen pages mentioned to you. I dont see you going on a rampage to delete them. It seems no matter how much proof is given to you, you are aiming to delete history. Salut65 (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete non-notable beauty queen. To follow up on what Salut65 says, I have a strong guess that most of those over 1000 articles on beauty queens should be deleted. These are by and large people who get very passing notice and than fade from public view. There are exceptions, but a huge number of the articles we have fall under that description.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete per Johnpacklambert's assessment. However a note that to Salut65 to improve the main articles Miss Pakistan World meantime. It has been tagged with unreliable references since 2016. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī () 17:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@ User:AaqibAnjum The latest news about Miss Pakistan World was completely deleted by the previous user. Thanks. I will try my best to get the sources. Also she has removed 18 years of controversy of the contest. She did the same for Sonia Ahmed, and cut down both pages to 1/4 of what they were. Thanks Salut65 (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Zanib Naveed

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

run of the mill pageant contestant MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete – Her death was mentioned in NYPost , People , and Fox , but all are working from the same press release. I can't find any coverage of her before her death or after it. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete a winner of a pageant that does not confer notability. Salut65 (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Consensus that the individual is not notable (part of a run of similar cases, I am aware, but one that no-one has made a general rebuttal across them) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sanober Hussain

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

beauty pageant participant, not notable MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete Winner of a completely non-notable event that wouldn't meet any SSG. Not enough coverage shown to pass WP:GNG Sulfurboy (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Natasha Paracha

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

Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete a winner of a pageant that does not confer notability. Salut65 (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mahleej Sarkari

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

non notable beauty paegent contestant MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete a winner of a pageant that does not confer notability. Salut65 (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Consensus that notability is not established Nosebagbear (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Naomi Zaman

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

Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

- Delete Winnner of very non-notable pagent event. No WP:GNG shown. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete as WP:G5, more at Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashkumar16/Archive. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Sri Naga Kanni Amman Temple Thalaivankottai

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

Incoherent and doesn't have enough sources to prove it passes WP:GNG. This may make WP:CSD but I'm not sure enough, and the creator of the article has already removed a CSD tag (So I wouldn't PROD). Username 19:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Username 19:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Username 19:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete I don’t really understand why someone with this level of English would attempt to write an article, but this effort doesn’t belong here. I can’t find any sources in English to support notability, but if there are non-English sources I’d reconsider my !vote as long as the current text is cleared out and we start again. Mccapra (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete I can't understand what the article is about. Incoherent English, random capitalization of words, sparse punctuation. I'd be surprised if it didn't qualify for CSD under WP:G1. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I can barely understand it, so to me it barely doesn't. Username 21:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete - Even if the content were really understandable, this article wouldn't be appropriate given our notability guidelines. Deletion is absolutely the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
There is already a Draft:Sri Naga Kanni Amman Temple Thalaivankottai and it was moved to mainspace without review so I guess it can be speedily deleted?Jonteemil (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I suggest protecting Sri Naga Kanni Amman Temple Thalaivankottai since moving it to draftspace obviously didn't stop the user from editing there.Jonteemil (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The user might get themself blocked anyway. They've already removed a speedy deletion notice and the notice for this AfD twice. Then again, salting is still probably a good idea. Username 12:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment, article isnt that incoherent (who doesn't like a challenge?:)), there is a problem with a reference (actually the temple's website) imbedded in its incomplete infobox, lots of capitalisation that, although time consuming, could easily be fixed, the section on the temple history/story of the goddess, Naga Kanni, is actually quite interesting, but i digress, the main issue is sourcing that leads to wikinotability. this temple doesn't appear to have any (a gsearch brings up "how to get there" websites, temple facebook page, couple of blogsites, and WP pages. As stated earlier the only reference is to the temple website, so this article is unsourced (all of its content could be considered WP:OR/WP:COPYVIO) with no prospect of improvement that brings us to delete as not meeting WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Note:I've tagged the article with CSD G5 due to the author being a sock (see the SPI casepage) Username 14:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete Even if there is anything valuable here it still remains unclear. WP:TNT at least apply for now. Ashishkafle (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Blog Wars

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

Non-notable film, no independent coverage, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 19:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete - A bit of searching seems to indicate that this film barely made a ripple in terms of critical response. There's nothing like the reliable source coverage that we need to build a proper page out of. It's simply not notable, and thus deletion appears to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete- non-notable documentary sourced only to Imdb. Reyk _YO! 09:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources, for example there is only one blog listed at imdn external reviews and no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete I could only find it on IMDb and BBC Four, but none of these can make it notable. Couldn't find anything that makes it notable in the article either. Apparently fails NF. Ahmad 19:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete - A non-notable film. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus for deletion. Pruning is an editorial decision best further discussed on the article's talk page. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Solomon family

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

This is essentially a family tree with no focus on notability. Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information CutOffTies (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CutOffTies (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CutOffTies (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CutOffTies (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Looking at the edit history, this has clearly been a labour of love by one editor over the past 7+ years, and the dedication and level of research is commendable: but it's simply not what Knowledge is for. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete - This information is helpful for people looking into history in terms of a specific family as an example, but being useful doesn't by itself guarantee a topic's worth as a page on Knowledge. It's frustrating given that this is clearly a better written article than a lot of the nonsense that we typically see, but deletion is totally the right call. As stated above, notability doesn't really exist here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The Solomon family was active in South Australian politics, law and society, many members notable within that context, but the value of this article lies in resolving confusion regarding members (and non-members) of the family with identical or similar names (eg. the Vabien/Vaiben Solomons, Moss/Moses Solomons and Judah Moss Solomons), and the relationship between notable members where significant intra-family marriages took place. I'd say Keep, but then I would, as its principal editor. Doug butler (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd say keep but am not sure if I have the standing as an editor to do so. I came to say that maybe it could be moved to Wikiversity, where it'd be acceptable as a research resource. Additionally, the various members of the family could be added to Wikidata, and their relationships modelled that way. Sam Wilson 03:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Weak keep if pruned right back to those items that can be linked to other wikipedia articles. Such would provide important context and of a type of context often hard to find in wikipedia. See WP:LINK, for example Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole. Aoziwe (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete for WP:NOTGENEALOGY but also that there is a distinct lack of notability of this family and most of the ancestors and descendants. Ajf773 (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep but significantly prune. I think this article should only focus on the members who are notable and have articles (e.g. Judah Moss Solomon, Vaiben Louis Solomon, Elias Solomon, Sophia Solomon, Emanuel Solomon, Emanuel Cohen, Vaiben Solomon, Lance Vaiben Solomon and the two Boas brothers). Everything else should go, and particularly the "unrelated but connected" section(!) Deus et lex (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Strong keep and prune (as per Deus et lex but stronger on the keep). The Solomon family are absolutely a historically notable family in Australian politics and business - but this article hides that by burying the bunch of notable people in hordes of non-notable family tree. Not for the first time, this author's interest in geneaological research around notable people does not work very well for Knowledge - that doesn't mean his core topics aren't notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep sources are legit so is notability. just needs to be pruned.Grmike (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)grmike

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep Well made and sourced, and is interconnected and with enough notable members to warrant the page. But it really needs to remove the descendants that lack notability, even at the cost of possible mix-ups with names. Edigodiuss (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Comments I find it interesting that most of the keep advocates also indicate that a significant prune of this article is required. What does that say about the article? Also, how many family articles on Knowledge are about some notable family members for unrelated things? Meaning, the family articles I've seen are about a family notable for being a political dynasty or running a company, significant to a specific geographic area, etc. Maybe there is a common thread here in the article, but it is not in the lead or even the entries themselves. I see some politicians, an early childhood educator, and there are some blue links but this article doesn't even say why the person is notable! CutOffTies (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
'Keep - there is an interesting more general discussion to be had here. Clearly we do have family tree articles, and in some of them, there may be the occasional non-independently notable individual. However, this appears to have gone well beyond that. A graphical family tree showing them might be viable, but this is not. Bluntly I'm not sure how best to go trimming, but it still appears to be a "cleanup, not deletion" instance, and it's hardly a TNT case. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Consensus is clearly that no suitable sources exist that would meet our BLP policy, and that notability cannot be demonstrated according to either GNG or MUSICBIO due to the same lack of suitable sources.

Sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/general tedious bullshittery has, of course, been ignored. Nick (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

D Byron

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Entirely sourced to an interview the artist gave to a teen webzine hosted on Wordpress, and there's no indication at all that the artist has ever done anything notable. I can't find any other sources at all about the artist or his albums. The photo used in the article is the same as the one in the webzine interview, but the SPA editor who created this article claims it as their "own work". Richard3120 (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingnewforyoufor (talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Somethingnewforyoufor (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
oppose/keep I wrote the article and took the picture, D Byron is a notable musician. Christopher T. Thompson (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2020 (CST)

So in fact you are the author of the only source on the subject. And you have to prove that he is notable, not just say he is. Richard3120 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

oppose/keep I personally know this article to be true and he is a notable musician. I own his CDs — Preceding unsigned comment added by MandyJC (talk • contribs) 22:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC) — MandyJC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I never said it wasn't true, but that doesn't make it notable. Please read WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Richard3120 (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep. I personally know this article to be true and he is a notable musician. I own his CDs "Turning Off Lights" and "Killing Ants." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollyleichavez (talk • contribs) 23:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC) — Hollyleichavez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm not sure how famous you have to be, but his music is in my top 100, so to think he is not notable is crazy to me. I think it's because his name is hard to Google. I figured the page would get added on to later by other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.27.255.117 (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC) — 50.27.255.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete There is no sign of significant coverage for this person. Also, WP:DUCK and WP:CANVAS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 23:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
oppose/keep I personally know this article to be true and he is a notable musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronmoh (talk • contribs) 00:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC) — Ronmoh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - Wow, if you're going to round up friends (real or imaginary) to save the article, you could at least be more creative and have them say different things. This musician has no significant and reliable coverage in the music media as required at the notability rules for musicians, and I am unable to find a single professional review for either of his albums. All he has are streaming links and a few YouTube videos that he probably uploaded himself. The "keep" voters above (or voter, because they may be the same person) are clearly unaware of Knowledge's notability requirements, and this is not a promotional service. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete - Blatant promotional and obvious either CANVASING or SOCKPUPPETRY. I also found it funny in checking the reliability of the source, the webzine Teenzine, in the "about us" link, spells the word "article" as "artical." ShelbyMarion (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NM Edigodiuss (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Considerations"""" 1. Under Reasons For Deletion: Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Knowledge is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept. (OBVIOUSLY, THIS INTERESTS SOME PEOPLE) 2. Under notability: The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. (IS IT BECAUSE MOST OF THE ARTICLES ABOUT HIM ARE IN PRINT AND NOT ONLINE CAUSE FOR SUCH REACTIONS? I'M SURE YOU COULD TAKE ANY INDIE ARTIST OFF, BUT WHY SO MUCH EFFORT ON THIS? I ACCUSE THE ACCUSERS OF BEING BIAS OR TROLLS.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingnewforyoufor (talk • contribs) 02:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be online - if you can cite print sources from reliable publications, for example established newspapers or music magazines such as Rolling Stone, Billboard or Spin, that would be acceptable... you would just have to provide full details of the citation, such as author, date/issue number and page number, so that other editors can check those sources and verify them. Richard3120 (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

And just to expand on what Richard3120 (talk) wrote here, in the course of verifying the sources it's not only a matter of whether such a source can be established as being independent of the subject (or has a third party editorial staff) but the source itself has to stand up to certain professional or at least quasi-professional-but-competent standards. As I mentioned with my "delete" vote previously, when I checked the sources, one of them spells "article" as "artical." The other spells "arrogant" as "aragonant." That kind of sloppy amateurism will sink the reliability of a sources as easily as any other criteria. So by all means add the print sources, but if they suffer the same kind of cheapness, they too will be discounted. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I ran a Google search and did not find any coverage of him in reliable sources. Versace1608 13:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete, per above arguments. There is simply no SIGCOV that would support a notability claim, per either the GNG or WP:MUSIC. Furthermore, I think ShelbyMarion's comments above are quite adequate when it comes to gauging the quality of the sources presented so far, which are extremely poor. PK650 (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete Oy Vey, the socking/canvassing is so blatant. Doesn't have the significant coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG and doesn't pass WP:NMUSICIAN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment - As a sidenote, I have taken the liberty of opening a Sockpuppet investigation casepage. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
delete and nuke all the socks/SPAs. There are 0 sources about this person that would fulfill any notability criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Dladla Mshunqisi

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

Non notable musical artist that does not satisfy WP:SINGER & doesn’t meet WP:GNG either. A BEFORE shows a gross lack of notability. Celestina007 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, at least until some South African Wikipedians comment on the notability of the refs, including the one I just added to the page. Newystats (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Newystats, Nope we do not need to wait for South-African editors to comment this is a collaborative project in which we determine notability by the formula “in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources” if an article satisfies this golden rule, then a stand alone article is warranted if not then it isn’t. Waiting for editors from a particular continent to comment before taking action is something I’ve never heard of. Celestina007 (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The article's sources are either unreliable (refs 3, 4, 5), promotional (refs 1, 6) or not independent (ref 2). A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 16:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

What grounds do you have for saying the https://www.iol.co.za/ ref is not independent? Newystats (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The entire IOL source contains lengthy quotes from the subject. It can be used in the article but cannot be used to establish notability because it is not a secondary source. Versace1608 14:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete Nothing here to show a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST Sulfurboy (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Trip.com Group. Consensus to not keep, but split between merge and delete. Redirect is my usual compromise solution in such cases; editors can still merge stuff from the history. Sandstein 07:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

TrainPal

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

Fails WP:GNG and seems to have been written as WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment that it doesn't look particularly promotional to me, except in that some of the links are junk. But they seemed to be mixed in with enough links with focused coverage to pass GNG. I am not entirely convinced there is enough non-routine coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, however. I'm on the fence. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment having read through this article and done a little bit research myself, I found the company is credible, and most of the references used in the article are from reliable sources. Therefore, my overall opinion is that this article well deserves to be accepted by Knowledge, though modifications with the description and the references are encouraged. For the references: as suggested by the administrative editor, the main problem with this article seems to be ″promotional″ WP:PROMO. This does not feel like a problem to me, yet can be addressed by deleting/changing certain references if it does to other editors. For the description, as also mentioned by an earlier editor, more details on the company's history, organization, etc., would better be included to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I will be more than happy with this article being accepted given the authors revise accordingly, but am also okay if the authors decide to leave it ″as is″ for the time being.Thuslittleseven (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

— Thuslittleseven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Thuslittleseven's comment is essentially a "keep" ivote. The only contributions this editor has made to Knowledge are this AfD . Also, this account was created on 5 January 2017 ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You can of course tag it with SPA if you want, but even with a couple of common points, there's not enough to overcome AGF. Closing admin can weigh as they see fit, though I suspect Sandstein probably relisted on a delete/merge split Nosebagbear (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet SIGCOV guidelines in provided sources. GrangerShots (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete as likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 13:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Trip.com Group, the parent company of TrainPal, per Knowledge:Editing policy#Try to fix problems. I reviewed the article and consider it neutrally written:
TrainPal is an online ticketing platform owned and operated by Ctrip.
Launched in February 2018 in the United Kingdom, and website.
TrainPal is mainly for the United Kingdom, other European countries, with the feature of "split ticketing", making its debut in the UK in February 2018.
In July 2018, the software was launched in Italy, and Italo. In September, it entered German by collaborating with Deutsche Bahn.
TrainPal has been accredited by the National Rail of the United Kingdom.
The text does not use promotional language.
Cunard (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Merge to Trip.com Group as advised by Cunard. The sourcing is not sufficient for NCORP/NPRODUCT requirements, but certainly could be added into its parent's page. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete no demonstration of WP:RS. Fails GNG, ORG. Also it is likely SPAM . Not a platform for advertising or promotion WP:PROMO. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect - We have only a bit of useful information and just slight notability, so I agree that we should send things over to 'Trip.com Group'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

André van der Hoek

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

An earlier version of this article was speedy deleted under WP:G11 as an unambiguous promotion that merely replicated the professor's CV. This version was created immediately after that deletion and does little to improve upon the situation. Taking it to AfD for a final resolution. There is little evidence that this professor meets any of the requirements for senior titles and significant notice of his work at WP:NACADEMIC, and all that can be found during a search are his own departmental listings and some conference appearances. Note that other editors suspect a conflict of interest as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep per WP:PROF. His works are highly cited as shown on his Google scholar profile (see external links). The current article doesn't read like WP:PROMO to me and certainly does not rise to to the level of WP:TNT. TJMSmith (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Recuse. Normally bios of academic computer scientists are something I would weigh in on but he's in a different department in the same school as me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC).
Keep. 7000 citations, with many articles having more than 100 citations certainly looks like impact for WP:NPROF C1, even in a high-citation field like computer science. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Jeffrey Burch

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

Reviewed as a part of new article curation. Non-wp:notable local dental Dr. No suitable coverage for wp:gng and nothing noted for SNG. Of the 6 references 5 are just listings and the 6th is a Rotary Club Publication which, though I couldn't find it in there, probably mentions him as a participant in some charitable work. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL - run of the mill dentist. Bearian (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Lillian Knight

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

I see no evidence that any of Knight's roles were signifcant roles in notable productions. IMDb is not a reliable source, especially not for showing that someone is notable. It aims to be comprehensive, while Knowledge expects actual notability. This article is an example of the sub-standard articles we got before we started having notability gudelines as it dates back 14 years to 2006. A search for additional sources turned up nothing. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ (struck out for now due to developments below) per WP:BASIC since I cannot find multiple reliable sources with significant coverage about the figure. Furthermore, it may be that there are two Lillian Knights whose filmographies are mixed together. AFI shows only Stage Madness. The only reliable source I found with signicant coverage was the book Mack Sennett's Fun Factory which has an entry for her:

"Lillian Knight – 'Miss Los Angeles' in 1924 – was a Sennett girl and leading lady in comedies of 1924-1925 and appeared in the 1927 Fox feature Stage Madness. There was a different actress by the same name in the 1910s."

I would support having a footnote at Stage Madness covering her brief background. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

If there are two Lillian Knights conflated in one IMDb profile and one Knowledge article, it would be helpful for people to refrain from voting for a moment while I and any other interested parties flesh it out. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the Sennett info and striking your comment for now. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment She performed in the Buffalo Bill act and was a silent film actress. I'm fleshing it out now. I'm finding more about her under her birth name and her name at time of death. Did no one search for her under her birthname? It's on IMDb. Some information appears in this book, though I can't view much of it, it looks like it's an article about her. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The films identified as hers in her obituary are billed on IMDb as Lillian Christy -- who has no LoC record and no dates. I will continue to research and include this... fourth name and ??? person. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not done yet by any means... but it appears that the vital facts and photo are on person and the filmography from before I looked into it are likely at least one other person. Next I will look into who that person was, and make sure that is just one person. The obituaries for this person suggest she does indeed pass the general notability guideline. Perhaps another article on the other Lillian Knight is in order as well. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep Performer with various wild west shows who was a western star in the early days of film. Passes WP:GNG. A source would have been found had a thorough WP:BEFORE including her birthname been performed, but HEY. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep per DiamondRemley.† Encyclopædius 07:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep after great work by DiamondRemley39. PamD 10:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep per expansion and points made by DiamondRemley39 Scanlan (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep: As per WP:HEY. Great work yet again by DiamondRemley39. Dflaw4 (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep as reliable sources have been found and added to the article so that WP:BASIC is passed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Covering Kids and Families of Indiana

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

Fails WP:NORG. All of the sources provide incidental coverage of this organization. The article is promotional in nature, though with good intentions. Rogermx (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:ORGSIG, as organizations are not inherently notable, and WP:NPOV, as it is written with a promotional bias as was brought up by the nominator. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Simon Hercules

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

His death is sad, but it did not garner enough coverage to allow him to pass GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete - This non-notable individual only attracted a bit of attention due to the manner of his death, and even then it's simply a scattering of routine-sounding reports. We don't have the substantial reliable source coverage that we need to build a proper page out of. I agree. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Shanze1 (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarification: The person was in news throughout the news medias - print, digital, TV media, etc. However, I have read the criteria of notability in the guidelines given here - Knowledge:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event and so, I will leave it to the learned experienced users to come out to a consensus whether to keep or delete the piece. Thanks MahakMaatiDi (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete Materialscientist (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

India Book of Records

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted in AfD discussion in 2015. The current version of the article is apparently different from the deleted one (per this), but it has the exact same issues: there is no coverage at all of the book in secondary sources, let alone significant coverage. I have just removed a bunch of reference links to various short newspaper reports about records being entered into the book, for example this and this. I am not able to find any independent coverage, and so WP:GNG is not met. I guess WP:CORPDEPTH also applies as it is a commercial product, and that is even further away from being satisfied. bonadea contributions talk 14:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

delete most world record books are just a whos who of who can pay the most/make up whatever new record to get in. This is no different. Praxidicae (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete I've left a similar comment at . This doesn't add up. This company and a bunch of other are all connected to an organization named "World Records University". The URL for the .com redirects to the .co.uk page which is boldly emblazoned with "Registered Under Govt.of United Kingdom. Registration No. 284666862". A search in the UK companies office yields no trace (although there are a number of similar sounding companies). This looks to be WP:MADEUP to me. In any case, nothing I can find indicates it meets the criteria for notability, fails NCORP/GNG.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 20:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Suburban Tribe

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

I do not believe this article passes the general notability guidelines. There are in total two sources to work with, Sequential Tart and Comix Talk. They are solid sources, but it's just at least one too few to write an actual article with. All the citations currently in the article are primary sources. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 20:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete I searched for sources that would demonstrate notability. The closes I found was three personal blogs (1, 2, 3) and a brief article on a site called Lambiek Comiclopedia. None of these appear reliable. I don't think there is enough to justify notability. Even the current article says "Lee cited less-than-satisfactory viewer statistics (in the form of page views)... Lee noted 'that none of the major webcomic news hubs has registered my announcement". HenryCrun15 (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Alas, the stars have not aligned for the subject. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Abhijita Kulshreshtha

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

non notable astrologer. Writing ffor huffpo, Thrive, DC, TOI is the equivalent of saying "writes a blog" as anyone an submit there and she is not editorial staff, so also fails NAUTHOR among others. Praxidicae (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 13:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 13:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 13:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 13:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable astrologer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete no demonstrable notability, fails GNG. --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, The Hindu article is the only sigcov that I could find; not enough. — MarkH₂₁ 03:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Zehra Sheerazi

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

Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. There is consensus that the sources available do not establish notability under our guidelines. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Andrea Harrington

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

Country DA is not necessarily notable. If the post isn't notable, the first person of an under-represented group to hold it does not automatically become notable either. DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete being a district attorney at the state level is not notable. Being a US District attorney is general considered a sign of notability, although on occasion I have even seen articles on such deleted. US district attorney's cover much bigger areas and enforce federal law. We do not have sourcing to show notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose as creator. I have expanded the article with a number of new sources, including a variety of media including local, state, and national publications. There are now more sources than several other current DA articles. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete per John Pack Lambert. Classic case of WP:REFBOMB. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Have you read all of the sources? Several are just passing mentions but others are in depth profiles. I think the citations here are much stronger than, say Rachael Rollins. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui _水 11:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Coment The most recent comment probably indicates that the article on Rachel Rollins should be nominated for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete not a position of sufficient notability without independent reliable sourcing. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete (G5). MER-C 17:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Balraj Singh Bhunder

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

Fails WP:NPOL. All reliable sourcing is about his brother and the rest are complete junk (Knowledge, website homepages, etc.). GPL93 (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete — Basically what nom GPL93 said. I can’t seem to find in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources discussing subject of article. Also they fail to satisfy WP:NPOL. Celestina007 (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep According to WP:NPOL it states that notable politicians should have held national or state/wide office. This individual has held the office for the National General Secretary of the noteworthy Shiromani Akali Dal Party, Youth Wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AutonomousUser (talk • contribs) 22:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

"Office" refers to government office, not a post within a political party. He also wasn't the overall general secretary but the youth wing secretary. Additionally it doesn't address the fact that literally none of the references come close to establishing notability. GPL93 (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The office was not just a post within a political party it was notable recognition. During the time he held office, the political party was in ruling and the General Secretary's, Youth Wing or General, were considered to have a government office in the state of Punjab. Furthermore, the individual has a University named after him, honouring his notability and influence which show up on various sources following a search engine look up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AutonomousUser (talk • contribs) 22:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that this editor may have a conflict of interest in this subject. See user Contribs Mopswade (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Unbiased I am not connected to the subject in any way whatsoever. There is non conflict of interest in submissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AutonomousUser (talk • contribs) 07:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

AutonomousUser you wouldn't happen to be another sock puppet of Gbhundar, who also only wrote about this subject's family, would you? GPL93 (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete.Non-notable politician, lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I've nominated this article for speedy deletion as AutonomousUser created it while evading his block. GPL93 (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. In the similar case of Annie Rupani I relisted to allow for more discussion of the sources in the article, but this article doesn't seem to cite much in the way of sources. Sandstein 07:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Saiyma Haroon

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

Only claim to fame is that she won a local beauty pageant in canada. Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you see their detailed report?

Delete a non-notable beauty pageant contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete, not enough to stand as a separate article. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī () 01:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Johnny Hazzard

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

doesn't meet any notability criteria: fails WP:GNG, fails WP:BASIC and fails WP:ANYBIO. Moreover, some of sources are not enough and not reliable and include blogs and similar. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep The article provides sources showing notability. Kleuske (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep Hazzard was a big gay porn star and won several awards including best actor. Slate described him as "He was the kind of old-school marquee star that the porn industry rarely produces anymore".1 But he has gotten some work and coverage outside of porn. Most of that was for his role in Tiger Orange, and received praise for his performance from many critics, some of which are already in the article, but also Variety and The Hollywood Reporter.2 3 He also was on the television series The Lair for two seasons, and while his music single wasn't a chart success, did receive some mention in press in the Billboard ref in the article, and in a piece from Out about porn stars pursuing music ventures.4 Meets GNG and WP:ENT in my opinion. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep I'm not convinced that the awards demonstrate notability much, but the sigcov in the Slate article in conjunction with with significant mentions in multiple other very reliable sources is enough to demonstrate WP:GNG Sulfurboy (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep, easily meets GNG, the rest is clean-up which is not what AfD is for. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep per the Slate article and other reliable coverage. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment I am happy to see I was wrong. Still, I can see a few problems with the sourcing and it would be great if some of you could contribute helping me to improve this article. See please number 3 a blog, number 6 which appears to me just a mention, number 10 which is a commercial web site (ch1) and number 11 which I don't understand what it is. thank you. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Matěj Paprčiak

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

{{{Not notable according to Knowledge's guidelines. The person is insignificant. He didn't win any awards in Czech Republic, any contribution to this sport. He even doesn't play football anymore.}}} Terez666 (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep Nominator's reasons are wrong. He has played 6 times for Slavia Prague in a fully professional league. Winning nothing/being retired from football are no reasons to delete. Paprčiak has moved onto modelling and acting and has some coverage for that. Dougal18 (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ A lot people played in Slavia but its not reason to be on wikipedia. Here should be people who have achieved something special or great beyond the norm of football. No ordinary player who retired in 25. --Terez666 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC) This comment originally contained the words "and didnt achieve any awards. If so this should be on czech wikipedia and not on english wikipedia." but they were deleted after I made my reply below. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- There are several things in the nomination statement that go against English Knowledge policies and guidelines. It is not necessary for awards to have been won for a subject to be notable, an encyclopedia covers history as well as current events, and "English" and "Czech" are simply the languages in which the respective Wikipedias are written, not a restriction on what topics are covered. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  - You get me wrong. It doesnt mean that he is not notable cause he didnt win any awards. It doesnt matter but i just said.. plus like even that he was ordinary fotball player. There is no any article in newspaper or on internet about his professional life or just about his carrer so why is he so special for wikipedia? what did he achieve? thats my point.--Terez666 (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    - Please don't delete parts of your comments after someone has replied to them, because it makes it impossible for others to understand the replies. If you no longer wish to stand by them then use <s></s> to strike them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
      - People are considered remarkable if they have gained significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and subject-independent. Where do you have more published secondary sources about his football career? I didn't find anything. Page has only two references: 1. Its about the general match, not specifically about M. Paprčiak. 2.It's seems like not independent source and there are only one sentences about his football career that he played and left. So an ordinary player. Nothing special for wikipedia, where people should be: WP: SPORTSPERSON--Terez666 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL with a number of games; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 12:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Basic criteria: Players who have played in any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA and he didnt. Where is sources or articles about that? None,There must be articles or references in multiple published secondary sources.--Terez666 (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep - meets criteria two of WP:NFOOTY: "Players who have played...in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable. See WP:FPL." He appeared for Slavia in the Czech First League. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- but there is not proper articles and references about that.--Terez666 (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  - Are you disputing that the IDNES sources in the article confirm that he has played for Slavia? And is there a reason why the only edits that you have ever made are trying to get this article deleted? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    - And before making any more edits you should reinstate the content that you deleted in your comments above, because my valid observations in reply look like non sequiturs now. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
      - No. I started with that cause I saw that its not properly done and there is missing proper references. On that article IDNES is no proper info about him. And its just one and its not enough for wikipedia. --Terez666 (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep, meets WP:NFOOTY as having played fully professional footerball. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep, passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Speedy keep per WP:CSK #3. I smell a hidden agenda. Anyone else? KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Diya Ali

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

Only claim to fame is that she won a local beauty pagent and then her bikini pics were shared on social media. Postergirl for failing GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete - I agree. I'm not sure what to say other than that she simply isn't notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable beauty pageant contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete quickly, if possible Edigodiuss (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Discworld (world)#Sentient species. Clear consensus not to retain as standalone; redirecting as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Dwarfs (Discworld)

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

Unreferenced topic. 100% WP:PLOT. No evidence of passing WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. BEFORE shows only WP:PLOT-level discussion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete it is time to be rid of all unreferenced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete As failing GNG and fancruft. The redirect Dwarf (Discworld) should be retained and redirected to Discworld (world)#Sentient species, where it is mentioned._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete, as this article is a completely unreferenced pile of in-universe material that fails GNG and WP:PLOT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Notability established. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Knowledge's response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

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

I think this article could be summaried into other COVID-19 article, same as Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Teleconferencing in the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic Hddty (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hddty (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep. I don't think merging is suitable. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī () 10:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Question: where to move the page? --ReyHahn (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete And the navel gazing award of the year goes to...Knowledge! CaptainEek ⚓ 10:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I see that I am the minority, and am thus striking my vote, as it is clear the community wishes to keep this page. I still see it as an exercise in navel-gazing, but then again we've created some 5,000 pages on corona, so whats one more? I think that we're definitely over-covering corona, showing our WP:RECENTISM bias. CaptainEek ⚓ 07:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Not many events have had nearly everyone in the world impacted significantly, this is one that does. Juxlos (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep there are certainly enough sources. Merging it to a higher level article, alongside some other similar articles (eg teleconferencing) would result in an article that's way too long. Juxlos (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep (preferred) or merge to section of a COVID-19 article (which one?) and also add an excerpt at Knowledge. I think that it would be better to determine an adequate outcome by adding a summary to a broader article and seek consensus on the talk pages. AfD is not really the best venue to discuss that process, and this nomination looks a bit premature. --MarioGom (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Weak keep. The sources are abundant and reliable and its scope well-defined, no matter how masturbatory it sounds. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete—is any of this coverage especially noteworthy? As in, is Knowledge's response to coronavirus any different from our coverage of other disasters, epidemics, shootings, etc which have received press? I don't believe it is. Publications talking about editing current events is at this point basically WP:ROUTINE coverage, and could be summarized in a line or two in the Knowledge article as an example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

David Fuchs: Several reliable sources cited in the article are far from WP:ROUTINE and provide non-trivial analysis and reporting. --MarioGom (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You wouldn't find Slate or Haaretz writing a full-length article about Knowledge's response to Eurovision Song Contest 2019, but they have for this one. This coverage is covered, and therefore it's noteworthy. Juxlos (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Strong keep (disclaimer: article creator) per sufficient secondary coverage in reputable sources. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep - easily meets GNG (also, no target for a merge is proposed; and the video conferencing article was merged to Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on science and technology#Telecommunications - come back when this can be merged into 'Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on encyclopedias'). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Weak keep - It's difficult to know right now if this is a one-time event (it would be nice if it was, indicating the crisis is short), but it doesn't seem to be over and Knowledge so far played an important enough role to make the news; some of the articles are also more than only mentions. —Paleo Neonate – 15:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep The subject of this article is the subject of media coverage in multiple major media outlets globally which present various perspectives. This passes WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
'keep' I feel it would be inappropriate to summarize in main article. Jcoolbro (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep for now. It passes the GNG. I imagine this would be upmerged eventually, but it seems reasonable as a stand-alone article for the time being. Guettarda (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep Adequately sourced to establish notability, and long enough that merging would be awkward (though not impossible, if the right target were identified). We can write about Knowledge on Knowledge if the sources exist to build that writing upon, and here, they do. XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep Meets GNG, and no suitable merge target seems to exist, at least until something like Wikimedia response to disasters comes around. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep per above comments. As for navel gazing, this isn't it. Knowledge's coverage of the pandemic has taken on notable status, per sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep or merge to Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on science and technology, if Knowledge is considered a technology. b uidhe 01:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep: Plenty of coverage in third-party sources, establishing adequate notability. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep This is a very unprecedented in the world and Knowledge is one of the very few place that can always give up-to-date and 100% neutral information regarding this COVID-19 issues. Chongkian (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep - The authentic and authoritative coverage by Knowledge is acknowledge by the sources, which makes this a notable topic. No need to merge into anything. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep Title could change a little, I think "Wikimedia and the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" would be an improvement (the article goes beyond WP), but WP:GNG is not a problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep as long as the article is well-sourced from media coverage and far from original research or unreliable referencing, I support keeping it. ---Avicenno (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Very week keep - Move to Knowledge:WikiProject COVID-19/Wikipedia's response is preferred solution over deletion... does have some interest for the project.--Moxy 🍁 01:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep per reasons above. There's no consensus about the deletion of this article. Movies Time (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Considering that there are a number of reliable sources that prove towards the significance over Knowledge's responses to coronavirus, it is worth keeping the article as a separate mainspace article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep. I feel this article is valid to be retained here. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Week keep . It needs to be edited so it is more like an article, not a project page. It could also be moved to a page in the Knowledge namespace. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

List of World War II weapons of China

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

Non-notable list JMHamo (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep List is notable, all entries in the list but one have their own articles.

For reference, other similar lists can be seen here:

Mopswade (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep Multiple books have been written on the topic (for instance ), so the topic is obviously notable. I doubt that any search for references was conducted here before this was taken to AfD. 11:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep - As stated above, this is a notable topic explored by various sources, including in print. The article appears appropriate and useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
KEEP Ample sources talking about this clearly notable topic. World War 2 was a rather big deal, ample coverage of all aspects of it. Dream Focus 14:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Bhagavadh Vinayaga Temple, Kumbakonam

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

Local temple with no claim for notability. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Now more links on the pujas and festivals of the temple are added. Information culled out from the inscription of 1692 C.E. is added. These are given with links. I will try to get more information in due course. Hope my links would be accepted. Regards. --B Jambulingam (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment: The speciality of Navagraha Vinayaka which is found in the temple is added with link. Some other links are also added. Regards. --B Jambulingam (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment - this AfD nomination took place less than an hour after the article was created - which scarcely allows for an adequate WP:BEFORE, given the language considerations. There are quite a lot of sources / references, mostly in Tamil, but also a couple in English which are good enough IMO, one of which was already present when the article was marked for AfD. There may well be more, not necessarily in English. This new editor has recently made numerous AfD nominations, several of which, like this one, are too hasty, in my view. I'll give my !vote on the actual nomination below. Is there such a thing as a procedural keep for a too-early nomination? Ingratis (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep - well sourced, for an Indian temple. The newspaper refs are mostly to Dinamani, which is apparently a reputable Tamil newspaper. There is more information that cd be added in the English sources which goes to notability, and on the basis of how much is available online I don't doubt that more can be found in Indian printed sources. Articles are not against a clock. Ingratis (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Temple appears to date from 1692 C.E. or before, i.e. before country existed of most probable !voters here. --Doncram (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment: C.E. denotes Common Era. This is for information please. --B Jambulingam (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep Enough sources already exist on the page to demonstrate notability and a cursory google search shows there should be quite a few more non-English sources. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. While there are sources that verify what this person has done, there is consensus among editors here that there the criteria necessary to establish notability has not been met. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Muskan Jay

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

Winner of a pakistani beauty pageant, no other claim to notability. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Please check her controversy section as well. It has a lot of credible links. I can still find more. May need some time. --Salut65 (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@ User:Salut65 all sources and news articles are about Arshad Khan the chaiwala, not about her. She is a passing mention. Thanks for helping me point it out. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@ User:MistyGraceWhite I found 2 more links which mentions all about her. Its is from the News. Please check it out. --Salut65 (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@ User:Salut65 your links mention her in a passing reference. The main point is Arshad Khan. Apart from that, if her only claim to fame is that she did a video with Arshad Khan, who is himself nearly a nobody and does not have a Knowledge article, and in that on single video, Arshad Khan's family did not like his intimacy and he promptly quit working with her. The media, even then, did not use her in the headlines, they used Arshad Khan. So she is even less noteworthy than Arshad khan. She is just a nobody. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you see their detailed report?

@ User:MistyGraceWhite

I have found some more links where the headlines have her name - https://stateviews.com.pk/muskan-jay-ropes-chaiwala-upcoming-music-video/

https://pakistanmediaupdates.com/muskan-jay-first-item-song-girl-pakistan-675.html

http://theasianpost.co.uk/chaiwala-romances-muskan-jay-in-latest-music-video/

Secondly, can we add her song links from Apple Music, Saavan etc. Will that help. As she has completed 10 songs and more and also was the winner of Mrs. Pakistan World 2016.

She has done many songs and every song has some link that I can submit. But for that I will have to list all her songs, and not all may have any media done.

So let me know if Apple Music links can work etc. Thank you. Salut65 (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@ User:Salut65 just making a song video does not qualify you for a wikipedia article. Mrs. Pakistan World is the name of a very local beauty pageant that is held in a small area in Canad, it has nothing to do with pakistan or the world. It is not a global beauty pageant, nor does it take place in pakistan. It does not even have any sustained mention in pakistani media. I reiterate She is a nobody. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@ User:MistyGraceWhite

I think you are not reading the sources. The pageant takes place in Canada, but they are the only representatives of Pakistan as all Pakistanis have pakistani citizenship to enter international pageants. Please do read the references. Its been taking place since 2007. And can you please advise as to why another article is sent for deletion, Diya Ali. Please check the news about her in the references. Thank you. Salut65 (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that I may have more credible resources , how can you helpme move the article of both Diya Ali and Muskan Jay in draftspace??? In my opinion both articles have enough references. But I can work on them and would prefer to move them in draftspace.

Let me know your opinion. Salut65 (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@ User:Salut65 I have checked thoroughly. There are no sources that exist. the article should be deleted. You can ask for WP:REFUND if you want to. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete - Merely releasing a couple songs (without receiving much of a response) and winning a beauty pageant (a relatively obscure one that doesn't get sustained coverage) doesn't make one notable. I agree. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Draftify as requested. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī () 23:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete not notable as a beauty queen or singer. It is articles like this that have nearly propelled us to having 1 million articles on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Alauddin Masood

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

No coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Salman Humayun

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

Promotional profile, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Talat Farooq

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

Promotional, few mentions, no WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America 20:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Abbas Husain

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional bio, limited coverage (few namechecks), fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable academic. I am pretty sure this is the same person as who the last article was about.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Gifty Ayew Asare

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No sourced appearances for NT BlameRuiner (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep - I think there is enough coverage from Ghanaian sources (already in the article) about her exploits in the USA to meet GNG. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep per GiantSnowman passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep - per sources passes WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY 154.160.24.1 (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep - All the sources provided is a prove to notability Geezygee (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete (G5). MER-C 17:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Gursimrat Singh Bhundar

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

The company this person leads is not notable and no secondary sources can be found. The only sources in this article are referencing his family members. Mopswade (talk) 07:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a known politically affiliated individual from the region of Mansa, Punjab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:1CE0:EE:51C9:4DE5:C29A:F5B6 (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe you're talking about Balwinder Singh Bhunder, not Gursimrat Singh Bhundar. Balwinder is from Mansa; Gursimat is not a known political figure. Mopswade (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete Not a single one of the sources mention him, two are just home pages. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG Hughesdarren (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep This page should not be speedily deleted because this article is providing information on a current political and entrepreneurial individual. It is not unambiguous advertising of a person. This person has been interviewed on various Media channels and news articles as well including https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJV1R1KaBJA&feature=youtu.be where he makes an appearance in the end of the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AutonomousUser (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that this editor may have a conflict of interest in this subject. See user ]. Mopswade (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not speedy deletion. Youtube is not a reliable source that demonstrates notability. Also, I cannot find anything about his political actions. He is just a CEO of a company that has not recieved much, if any, recognition. Mopswade (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The YouTube source is an uploaded video by a recognized media channel showing the politics affiliation, that is; in addition to being the CEO of a recognized company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.159.178.184 (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I've nominated this article for speedy deletion as AutonomousUser created it while evading his block. GPL93 (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Transall

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

The page fails Knowledge:Notability (organizations and companies) and shows an inconsistent approach to aircraft manufacturing consortia. Transall was a single product consortium to produce the Transall C-160. As a consortium, it was an unincorporated commercial arrangement and not a separate legal entity. Unlike Eurofighter GmbH, Panavia Aircraft GmbH and SEPECAT which were separate legal entities, we don't have separate pages for unincorporated aircraft consortia such as the Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet construction agreement and the Concorde construction agreement, I don't see why Transall should be treated differently just because they came up with a name. The Transall page recently has been pumped up with information about the Transall C-160 unrelated to the entity as there is so little information about Transall separate from its sole product. All the information about the consortium can easily be covered in one paragraph on the Transall C-160 page and in fact it already exists there. Mztourist (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ Keep - Article clearly meets WP:GNG, having significant coverage in several aviation periodicals and books. Please note the article has existed as a stub for nearly 14 years, but was only put up for deletion after recent expansion. - BilCat (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Transall C-160 has WP:SIGCOV, Transall doesn't. Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Article age Mztourist (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Whether or not it currently has sufficient material for an article is also no grounds for deletion - the real question, is enough material available? I suspect the answer is yes, because outside of its development of the aircraft there must have been sufficient politics involved to write an article about. The non-existence of other similar articles is likewise not an argument against the existence of this article. It just means those ones may also need to be written. - NiD.29 (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  - Knowledge:But there must be sources! Mztourist (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Comments - As the nominator failed to notify interested projects and editors per WP:AFD#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors, I have notified the following: Knowledge:WikiProject Aviation, User:Sylvain Mielot, User:Rlandmann, User:Kyteto, and User:MilborneOne. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- As advised on your Talk Page, which you have deleted, I have no obligation to notify editors: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion". Mztourist (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  - For the record, my notifications were fully in line with the guidelines at Knowledge:Canvassing:
    - In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
    - On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
      - Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
      - Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
      - Editors known for expertise in the field
      - Editors who have asked to be kept informed
  - The specific editors I notified were all significant contributors to the article over its long history, and I used a standard neutral template. I did so as a courtesy to those users, something the nominator was expressly unwilling to do. For these actions, the nominator twice accused me of canvassing, the second time falsely claiming You are WP:Canvassing by selectively notifying your friends effectively asking them to support your position.. Such slander is totally unwarranted, but not surprising. I will continue to notify relavant parties, including Wikiprojects, of AFDs as I see fit, especially when the nominators, including this one, neglect to do so. - BilCat (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Transall C-160. First of all, whether a topic is notable is down to sufficient WP:RS, it has nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFF. Second, whether a notable topic gets its own article or shares one with a related (parent/child/sibling) topic is based as much on the size and coherence of the individual subject matter rather than rigid habits (sorry forgot the WP:xxx thing for that). The consortium is clearly notable, but equally clearly it cannot sustain a worthwhile standalone article alongside its sole product. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep easily passes WP:ORGCRIT, Flight International and Air International both being well respected aviation reference sources. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Transall C-160 has WP:SIGCOV, Transall doesn't. Mztourist (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep - I think it has enough material to stand on its own merits; also, some information, such as the proposed C-161, would be entirely out of place on the C-160's article. I've tried to query whether the article should contain information on the manufacturing sites, but direct answers can't be gotten - perhaps discussing what sort of content should and shouldn't be there, rather than just the articles existence at all, would be worthwhile Kyteto (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- All information on the page has been copied over from the Transall C-160 page (most of it by you), there is no material here. No substantive information has been provided regarding the C-161, it sounds like an unproduced variant of the C-160 and so belongs on that page.Mztourist (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  - Comment: User:Mztourist: you have made your case in your original nomination, it really isn't necessary to refute each and every post here on this page that disagrees with you. - Ahunt (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    - As there are various Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions being made and ongoing conflation of the RS and SIGCOV concerning the Transall C-160 with Transall, I feel this should be pointed out. I would note that its deletion discussion, not deletion vote. Mztourist (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
      - Comment: Those are up to the closing admin to assess, not the nominator. Jumping all over each person who posts here just starts to look like an attempt to close down debate and WP:HARASS. I was going to add my own comments to the deletion discussion, but I don't really feel like doing that, knowing you will immediately jump all over my arguments, no matter what they are. I would suggest that you have made your case in the nomination, now let people post their opinions and arguments here without being immediately refuted. - Ahunt (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
        Whatever your opinion on the AFD, you should feel free to express it. - BilCat (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep clearly a noteworthy three-country international collaboration well reported in the media at the time. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Two countries not three. Please provide the "well reported in the media at the time" Mztourist (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I would counsel User:Mztourist to read WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Merge. Redirect to Transall C-160. Both the articles are inextricably linked with each other. It seems best to merge them.Lordofthesky (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

— Lordofthesky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The user has made 7 edits to this point, six of them to 4 AFDs. - BilCat (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

List of mayors in Alberta

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pursuant to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of council leaders in the United Kingdom, where a comparable list was deleted for similar reasons, these suffer from a maintainability problem that outweighs their benefit. The idea here was that every town or city in all of Canada that has mayors (or mayor-equivalent positions such as "reeve" or "warden") could list its current incumbent mayor somewhere -- in actual practice, however, we're actually staying on top of updating these in a timely and effective fashion only for the major cities where mayoral elections, resignations and/or deaths actually get reported as national news. In the smaller towns we frequently miss the boat when they change mayors, because that doesn't get as widely reported -- and furthermore, there are also many smaller towns which have still never actually been added to these lists at all. (British Columbia's list is especially, but not uniquely, terrible on that second point. Also terrible: Manitoba's most recent municipal elections were held in 2014? No, 2018 actually, so that just proves that we're not actually updating the lists.) And furthermore, since mayors do not all get automatic passes of WP:NPOL just for existing as mayors, these function primarily as long lists of mostly non-notable people without Knowledge articles to link to, which really limits their value.
By comparison, the United States does not have similar incumbency articles for List of mayors in California or List of mayors in Illinois or List of mayors in Florida -- what they have instead is a single List of mayors of the 50 largest cities in the United States, which is much more manageable (and helpful, since the big city mayors are the ones who are actually likeliest to clear NPOL.) And similarly, the UK does not have comprehensive incumbency lists of every mayor in England or Scotland or Wales, but just a defined and manageable list of the directly elected mayors (again, the ones who are most likely to clear NPOL.)
Accordingly, I've proposed at WP:CANTALK that Canada should do something similar: retain a single national list of the incumbent mayors of our 25, 30, 50 or 100 largest cities, but delete all of these attempts at mass inclusionism because we can't effectively maintain them with timely accuracy. The "list of mayors of " lists would not be affected by this, and neither would the base List of mayors in Canada (which is still useful as an index of the specific city lists, even if these incumbency lists are deleted.) Bearcat (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete. As the nom says, these lists are poorly maintained and of little value besides; as so few of the people are notable and lack pages, it is effectively just a bunch of names. I also support the creation of a single national list for the largest cities (I would cap it at 25, which serves as a rough cut-off at 200 000 people). — Kawnhr (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete there are too many non-notable mayors to justify these lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not pertinent to try to keep updated the local leaders of every small community, a national list would be much better. Reywas92 18:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete all per nom and WP:LISTPEOPLE. Most mayors of smaller cities, boroughs or districts are not notable. Ajf773 (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete all - As a poorly maintained list of people with no articles. Kori (@) 01:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was Redirect. The article had been redirected during this AfD and consensus was to keep the redirect. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Golden Path (Dune)

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

Fictional, uh, philosophy (concept?). No evidence of notability. BEFORE fails to find any in-depth coverage outside primary sources. Since an anon keeps disputing the prod and later redirect, I guess we need to get pro forma consensus for this here (and then I'd suggeast semi-protecting the redirect). Ping User:TAnthony who redirected this to Children of Dune with " this is plot and fancruft sourced back to the novels themselves, with no assertion of independent notability". Through in all honesty, I am not sure if this is a likely searchable term, so a regular deletion is probably fine here too, no need to redirect / semi on second thought. PS. Also ping User:Rosguill who restored the redirect at the same time I posted this AfD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: This has been turned into a redirect, and it looks like it was never properly nominated for deletion here anyway - perhaps this should be closed, and we could revisit if the article ends up recreated? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep Redirect: I would prefer that the redirect not be deleted, as it is linked in some Dune-related articles. We also have the disambig page The Golden Path, which suggests that "Golden Path" itself is a likely searchable term, and so any disambiguation is helpful. As far as a formal AfD goes, I finally boldly redirected the damn thing last year because it has been in this sorry, unsourced fancruft state for like 15 years. As Piotrus says, the article did not include any in-depth coverage outside primary sources, and as someone who has researched Dune topics to improve articles, there's not a lot to be found that would make this topic worthy of a standalone article like this. I'm not really concerned about the random IPs who have come along over time to dispute the prod and then make no effort to improve the article or even comment on the talk page. I'm not sure we'll get a lot of participation in this discussion so I like J Milburn's suggestion that we table this until someone tries to recreate it. Although, I would argue that if it is just restored and no effort is made to actually add helpful citations or defend the article's merit in discussion, it should be redirected again with no fanfare. I don't think it's right that an anonymous editor who simply hits the revert button on a whim without explanation and then goes on his merry way should be allowed to waste our time.— TAnthony 22:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment. I am fine with this being kept a redirect; as I noted in the AfD rationale, I nominated it in the brief moment it was recreated again as a stand-alone article (then it was redirected again). I just feel the redirect can be considered challenged, so I am hoping for an AFD verdict of 'redirect' here. And possibly a semi-protection of said redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Make it a redirect - I agree. The topic doesn't have the independent coverage that we need in order to maintain a separate article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Nom withdrew and all other comments are keeps. Izno (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind (1989 video game)

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

This article is unsourced, and web search for "nevermind video game" only shows sources related to the 2015 video game. The 1989 video game doesn't seem to be notable. Not a very active user (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC) I no longer support deleting this article, as sources establishing notability have been found. Not a very active user (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: There is at least one review in Amiga Computing. Unfortunately, GameRankings doesn't have any reviews indexed, and scouring the Internet Archive is difficult because most results from that time point to Nirvana's album of that name instead. Google might also not be the best way to assess the notability of a game released before the WWW. IceWelder 07:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep Found 3 more contemporary magazine reviews in New Atari User , The Games Machine and ACE (magazine) . That, along with Amiga Computing review above, makes it a pass of WP:GNG, requiring multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

IceWelder pinging. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep per sources found by Jovanmilic and IceWelder. Not a very active user (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Kudos to you, as I don't usually see AfD nominators to withdraw like this. I have added all references to the article now, so that should fix the unsourced issue (which indeed was a big one). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep as sources found make it pass WP:GNG XVDC (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Dokmai Garden

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

Does not appear to have satisfied the GNG during its period of operation. I was unable to identify third-party coverage, in Thai or English, that weren't tourist listings. Paul_012 (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. While there are sources there is a consensus that there are not (1)multiple, (2)reliable, (3)independent (4)secondary sources that discuss this company in (5)significant detail. As our relevant guidelines require all five of these there is a consensus among participants to delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Crep Protect

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Loksmythe (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep The company is relevant, having traded now for 6 years as a British independent business with industry & media recognition sourced and cited by independent secondary sources in the article. The company has been listed in the top 10 of the Sunday Times Fast Track list in 2018 and in 2019 as both a domestic and internationally significantly fast growing company. The company has specific notability for its contribution to Minority entrepreneurship and history as one of the companies founders, Jason Black, was included in The Powerlist 2020 of Britain’s most influential people of African, African Caribbean and African American heritage. This is also a prolific product that is sold in major retailers internationally, including but not limited to Dick's Sporting Goods & JD Sports and partnerships with adidas. Sidesix (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Can you link to specific references that meet the criteria for establishing notability *of the company*? For example a reference for "specific notability for its contribution to Minority entrepreneurship"? Or a reference containing Independent Content that supports it being a "prolific product"? HighKing 12:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  - maybe the fact that people are concerned about being sold a fake ?Grmike (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike
Delete, fails notability. Break down of sources, #1 - Trivial, #2 - Not secondary interview, #3 - Trivial, #4 - Not secondary interview (also probably trivial), #5 - Trivial, #6 - trivial, #7 - Spaced out and stopped caring. Probably more of the same from then on anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete There are 22 references in this article and not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most are company announcements or a mention-in-passing of the company with the emphasis on J2K. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing 12:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dibbydib (T ･ C) 05:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete as per Adamant1 and Dibbydib, articles on Crep Protect do not meet WP:COMPANY requirements for notability. XVDC (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Strong Keep - "Footwear accessories business Crep Protect was named number two in a list of the UK’s private companies with the fastest-growing sales in The Sunday Times Fast Track league table for 2018". My interests include reading and writing about notable companies. This company owns a brand that is well recognized if not now will be based on the partnerships and collaborations it has built up. A simple google search bring up a slew of references to the brand including the NY Times , GQ . it's quickly becoming a global brand with a following in greece .Grmike (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike
- These are all just mentions in passing. Where's a reference containing significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company*? HighKing 19:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

~~if I provide one you will accuse the company of interfering with the process. Your expectations are unrealistic.~~Grmike (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike

That's a really weak excuse for not providing a source. There's nothing unrealistic about expecting a source to discuss the topic to some degree beyond something like "hey, this company exists." --Adamant1 (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We've been going back and forth on other topics in other AfD discussion threads. We seem to be using differnet measuring sticks, but claim to be following the same guidelines. I'm new to this so bear with me.Grmike (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike

I have yet to see HighKing fully approve of any source used in a low-importance article. His measuring stick is always perfection. I think we can all agree that most of the articles are not perfect.Grmike (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike

biggest sneaker collection(s) in the world rely only on crep protect. crep protet is the main sponsor and organizer of a number of international sneaker conventions. = The Guardian : Fashion : How to keep your white trainers white White trainers look set to remain the footwear trend this summer. So we asked a sneakerhead how to keep your trainers very white has collaborations with the NBA, DJ Khaled, is the worldwide license holder for Adidas Shoe Care

theindependent.co.uk - "It’s now part of our colloquial language, you wouldn’t say trainer care you would say Crep Protect, it is to trainers what the Hoover brand is to cleaning! They worked hard on building a lifestyle brand around the product." - djmag.com : “I’m very proud to have played a small role in Nottingham being recognised for good music,” Scorzayzee says. “Recent statistics show that we are the poorest city in the UK. I say we are the richest in music. “It’s always had a big hip-hop scene from the break-dancing days of the ’80s at Rock City, right through the grime era and up ‘till now. Here’s a fun fact for you: my song ‘Crepps’ in 2001 is the reason you call trainers ‘Crepps’. That was a Nottingham slang word. Every time you see Crep Protect in a store, think ‘that’s Notts that gave you that!’”

: major sponsor in community encouraging community organizers and recreational activity special thanks to crep-protect and the community at large. : next source: Endevour Magazine : In recent years Crep Protect has quickly risen to the top-tier of the sneaker care industry, with an instantly recognisable name and some of the sneaker world’s biggest ambassadors, the brand sits proudly in the armoury of casual collectors and die-hard sneakerheads alike. When they stepped out the gate the brand came armed with their namesake protective spray, changing the way that coveted kicks were worn as the fear of liquid stains ruining precious fabrics taken out of the equation. Grmike (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike

Crep Protect founder now #25th most influencial black britons. The power of the crep brand is what put him there.Grmike (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike

Again, I appreciate the fact that you are spending a lot of time trying to find references but you don't appear to grasp what is required. You are synthesising - please read WP:SYN. This is a photo which has a tagline thanking the company for sponsorship, says nothing about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This from Endeavor magazine is an interview/profile of the company and their founders (*cough* advertorial?) and fails WP:ORGIND. This mentions one of the founder in a list, nothing about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. You'll save a lot of time if you read WP:NCORP, especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Lay off the ad hominen stuff. You're correct that we appear to have different "measuring sticks" but at least mine is anchored in Knowledge's policies and guidelines. HighKing 20:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

this is not just a photo - the link is just one click away if you bothered to look.Grmike (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike

This from Endeavor magazine you said advertorial?) and fails WP:ORGIND I consider interviews indepth and original. you cannot because you always assume the worst (advertorial). interviews are the only places you're going to find indepth coverage of the history and background of a fairly new company.Grmike (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike

It doesn't really matter what your opinion is if the policies/guidelines say the exact opposite. HighKing 11:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Khanted

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

Article does not comply with Knowledge is not a dictionary, has been unsourced since 2006, and probably contains original research. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 04:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 21:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America 21:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. There is no agreement about whether this should be covered or evaluated as a place or as a company, and whether it meets the inclusion requirements for either. Discussion quality is mostly poor, as there is little serious discussion of the quality of the sources on offer. Sandstein 07:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ted's Place, Colorado

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

Ted's Place was a gas station; even the article admits that, and that's what any reference says, other than passing mentions used to locate other spots. Is it a notable gas station? Maybe, but it isn't a settlement, and it never was. Mangoe (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 00:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 00:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete Generic local gas station, only known because it's a highway junction pit stop. Reywas92 00:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete It's a gas station, not an "unincorporated community". –dlthewave ☎ 01:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I started the article because it was a red link, but if you want to delete it, that's fine with me. I don't know how red links are handled, though. Are they 'unlinked' if an article is deleted? --Marjaliisa (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep So, it's a gas station not a settlement. But that's not a reason to delete as it's still notable because it's easy to find sources which highlight it as "legendary" Andrew🐉(talk) 09:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The link is from Arcadia Publishing, who has local writers write about their community. If you've ever seen one of those books, it lists everything that could possibly be listed in a city, mostly non-notable things such as food trucks, theaters, local shops, etc. It doesn't show notability. --Darth Mike 13:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It's good that there are local historians and publishers recording the history of such places. Here's a detailed account with more pictures. The worst case would be merger of this landmark with some broader topic such as Poudre Canyon but notice how that latter article doesn't have any sources at all currently. Knowledge is not built by wantonly deleting good-faith contributions for no good reason. See policies such as WP:ATD, WP:BITE and WP:PRESERVE. See also WP:INSPECTOR. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep

A source cited in the article states that on the southern part of the settlement are "a number of log cabins built by forgotten pioneers".
Ted's Place has received significant coverage, per WP:GNG, see .
This location is referred to again and again as a place. Countless map books and county documents say things like "turn north at Ted's Place", such as .
Even though the building (which appeared to have a living area upstairs) was demolished in 1983, the area is still called "Ted's Place" in official county documents , . Magnolia677 (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Weak keep It seems to receive some coverage over the years, so I guess it could be considered historic. It should probably be moved to Ted's Place since it is a convenience station and not a town. ~EDDY ~ 01:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

References

The WPA Guide to Colorado. Trinity University Press. 2013.

Delete, it is irrelevant if local sources refer to it as "a place". Being "a place" with a name is not sufficient to meet WP:GEOLAND, and if we're treating it as a historic building/location instead, it needs to meet WP:GNG, including at least some non-local coverage, of which there is none. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep and Move to Ted's Place per the sources in the article like from the Fort Collins Coloradoan and the additional coverage found by Editorofthewiki. Just because it's a gas station and not a town doesn't mean it's non-notable. Like Tramway Gas Station and Shea's Gas Station Museum, gas stations can be notable. Oakshade (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment Undecided on notability, but "delete because it's not a settlement" is a poor argument when nobody's asserting it is. Smartyllama (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

There has been a tendency to give any place that can be verified as a settlement something of a pass on GNG requirements, for better or worse. The issue, which I raised in the nomination and which seems to be being addressed, is that, as the service station that it is, whether or not it meets the GNG. Personally, I'm not entirely sold that it is well-known enough on a wide enough basis to satisfy the guideline. Mangoe (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep. And I don't like the ongoing campaign to delete places articles in the U.S. It is succeeding in pushing out a number of valid topics without them being defended, and others are being fought over before they end up being Kept. Most nominations in this drive are "achieving" Delete outcome. I for one don't like the drill; this is either forcing a lot of editors to do on-line research quickly without access to local libraries and their history files, etc., or it is losing the articles so not serving readers and making it harder for anyone in the future. These all are places listed in GNIS or whatever; it would be okay and far better than this to stop the compaign. --Doncram (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It takes a bad case of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT to miss being told over and over that GNIS's designations of "populated places" reflect a lack of care in the collecting, compounded by terminology which they use to mean something other than what the words themselves actually mean. Look, this service station is something of a borderline case. I am OK with others judging it to be a notable example of such, given decent arguments along WP:GNG lines. But a place with population it is not, and the evidence is that it never was. And the campaign is necessary, from my perspective, because people dumped a lot of crap in from GNIS without reviewing it and with no apparent intent to fleshing out decent articles. After all, years later, they still tend to be limited to the same possibly machine-generated text, with various mechanical improvements over the years but nothing done to improve the content. And to be fair, I have to think that when these articles were laid in, nobody appreciated the problems with relying solely on GNIS. But now we have these articles, and we know the problems, and the data does not become inarguable simply because it comes from a site with a .gov domain. At present, the discussion of place notability is, if anything, leaning towards getting stricter in its adherence to the primary guidelines, just as school notability was tightened (and that against my opinion, I would note). I also have to point out that, by and large, there's no significant information being lost in deleting an article whose sole source is GNIS, and if someone put together a better article using other sources, it would most likely survive an AfD challenge; more likely than not, there wouldn't even be a challenge. If you really want to object, start an RFC; but you've shown up enough times in these discussions to be aware of the issues that are driving the campaign. Mangoe (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Poorly-sourced stubs are not always as harmless as they may seem. When I do BEFORE searches on these places, I've noticed that sources such as Google tend to repeat Knowledge's "Unincorporated Community" description which is almost never based on a published source. We're actually creating and propagating bad information by keeping these stubs. –dlthewave ☎ 03:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time to hopefully sort out whether this is being evaluated as a place or a company.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 04:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep and Move. Should not be listed as a place, but as a gas station/store it has some coverage, more that a typical gas station, and has some historic characteristics. The place is closely associated with Ted Herring, who is automatically notable per WP:NPOL as a Colorado state representative and senator. To avoid two very small articles on barely notable topics, I would put it all in Ted Herring and with redirects from Ted's Place. MB 14:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep: Meets GNG.--Milowent • 22:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. The quality of arguments is poor on both sides, and we lack a serious discussion of the quality of the sources the article cites or that have been proposed here. Sandstein 07:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Camila Guiribitey

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

doesnt appear to be a notable youtuber, sources are just a name drop or the equivalent of "take care of your mental health, says on YouTuber!" Praxidicae (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable Youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Weak Keep There are enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Granted, they are mostly in Spanish but that isn't an issue, especially given that a decent chunk of her audience-base appears to be in Latin America/Caribbean. Personally, I can't quite see what she has done to warrant notability (besides posting on social media), but I feel that way about most "influencers" who meet requirements. IphisOfCrete (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment - She has been significantly featured in El Nuevo Diario (República Dominicana), laneta.com (in Spanish), CiberCuba (in Spanish), Hoy Digital (in Spanish) making her notable. 2019KB (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Also I've added new reference from https://cdn.com.do/ She is quite notable in latin america with over 1.7 million followers.

There are other sources too of her attending latin's grammy and her pretty luxurious life but I haven't added because I'm not sure whether if it would be perfect for Knowledge or not

She was invited on latin grammy: https://cdn.com.do/2019/11/20/camila-guiribitey-dice-que-sintio-mezcla-de-emociones-indescriptible-en-su-primera-vez-en-grammy-latino/

etc

@Praxidicae:] Sorry but I think that you have just checked first source, Please review other sources and let me know what you think, thanks

Weak keep - sourcing is of the tabloid type, but I was able to verify that she does have 1,750,000 followers. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep Most of her coverage is in spanish news publishers but still she passes General Notability Guideline. 2019KB (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

comment Camila Guiribitey is notable too as per principles of Notability for YouTuber, Also she is passing WP:ENT

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_YouTube/Notability#Principles 2019KB (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 04:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

comment In my opinion, the article should be kept. Beside the nominator only one user has suggested for deletion!

Beside that the topic is significantly covered in reliable source (Spanish) and passes general notability as well as WP: ENT 2019KB (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

KEEP SHE IS TRULY FAMOUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by cubangirl (talk • contribs) — cubangirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The result was delete. But no prejudice against recreation if someone wants to with proper sourcing (assuming there is any). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sunday night blues

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

Completely unsourced article on a "purported psychological condition". I see some coverage in popular press like the ELs, but they don't meet our standards for sourcing on mental health topics. Ultimately, with the number of big claims in this article, as is it's in WP:TNT territory at very minimum. Looks like it was prodded and contested by an IP afterwards. — Rhododendrites \\ 04:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites \\ 04:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites \\ 04:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete - I'd like to be charitable, but this really sounds like a bunch of nonsense that somebody made up on the spot. I agree. Deletion is absolutely the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete No sources, and the ELs dont cut it. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment This is a verifiable concept in pop psychology, e.g., two articles about it in Psychology Today ,. I could see WP:TNT for this article, perhaps a selective merge somewhere else, as it goes into synth beyond the sources. But I will keep this as a comment and not a recommendation, because I am unsure how pop psychology concepts fit into the space between MEDRS and GNG. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Sufficient sourcing found during AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Tom Richmond (cinematographer)

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

Non notable BLP. Sourced only with IMDb for several years. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment Found many, many short mentions in reliable sources via a quick search--he's shot many notable movies. More detailed coverage may exist. Caro7200 (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete similarly, I found many name checks but no significant coverage. Notability of the subject is not inherited from the many notable films he worked on.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Very true, but he has won stuff such as the Sundance dramatic cinematography award . Additional claims to notability may be out there. Caro7200 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

it's fine to say might be out there, but it carries little weight until we actually find them.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, let's hope that editors with film expertise weigh in. These many notable films had to be shot by someone... I don't know enough about Wiki's film guidelines to determine if a Sundance award is notable "enough," in addition to the many reliable sources that mention him. Caro7200 (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Caro7200: the Sundance award definitely helps. But there needs to be more coverage to establish GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment Sources Maybe Available. twerk000 —Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete Biographies of living people need reliable sources. This is a BLP. It has no reliable sources. Thus is must be deleted immediately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep. This cinematographer has a very substantial filmography. Here are several sources that provide substantial coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep after doing some research:

Sundance 2006: Frozen Moments – Right At Your Door from American Cinematographer; covers the work that won him the Sundance award
On STRAIGHT TO HELL: Straight From Its Cinematographer from BirthMoviesDeath
Detective of photography: DP tom richmond starts from ground zero on two new movies from Live Design
Winter 1995 issue of Filmmaker; no direct link, but this link has the snippet, "otherworldly DP Tom Richmond interviewed by Scott Macaulay"
Cinematographer Style: The Complete Interviews, Conducted from 2003-2005 has Tom Richmond as one of 55 cinematographers interviewed in this 410-page book (so on average, maybe 7 pages' worth of content about him)

Pinging others to review the above sources. Caro7200, ThatMontrealIP. Erik (talk | contrib) 12:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for finding. Are there Wiki guidelines in relation to cinematographers? Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Not cinematographers specifically, but WP:CREATIVE is one such guideline. Not sure how to best apply it since #3 likely applies most to directors. It seems like this cinematographer has contributed to numerous notable works, though probably on a level lower than the "co-creating" term that #3 uses. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Erik: I looked at the sources you gave. They are not particularly convincing. ACS is American Cinematographers Society, of which he is probably a member. "livedesign" is an article; the site has a store page where you can buy an award for your organization for $395! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

American Cinematographer is a reliable source for covering cinematographers. I'm pretty sure that it does not cover only ASC members and that it pursues a wider set of individuals. I have not seen Live Design before, but it is owned by Informa, which is a major corporation. I understand your concern about a self-serving purpose, but I do not see anything to indicate that it is a press release of any kind. Even so, that leaves BirthMoviesDeath headlining the cinematographer, as well as Filmmaker and the Cinematographer Style book. There may be more sources out there more locked up in industry publications. Erik (talk | contrib) 00:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Live Design looks dubious to me: they did not even bother to capitalize Richmond's name in the article headline: "Detective of photography: DP tom richmond starts from ground zero on two new movies". ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

You're right that the lack of titling is odd, but I'm hard-pressed to take that to mean that the coverage is problematic. Searching for site:livedesignonline.com intitle:dp, it looks like the website has had articles about other DPs, so I find it to be a reliable source. Erik (talk | contrib) 01:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep as there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG such as Filmmaker and Cinematograher Style Book and American Cinematographer, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep it seems that some editors are a litte bit to active to delete articles.Christo jones (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Christo jones I completed WP:BEFORE in full before nominating and made my own assessment on the notability of the sources available. Just because others have found additional sources, or that their interpretation of notability differs, does not mean that I didn’t complete these initial checks, or that I’m “to active to delete articles (sic)“. Please WP:AGF in future. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete per Nom: Unsourced BLP and sources provided do not give enough information to substantiate notability for a stand alone article. If there has been a "project" (official or not) to include all things IMDb on Knowledge then reviewing and deleting inappropriate subjects is just as important. I actually did not see this was nominated but made comments on the article talk page when I was not able to find anything to warrant a stand alone article. When notability is questioned being "pretty sure" there is coverage somewhere in the world (maybe on American Cinematographer?) is not a good rationale for "keep". We keep articles that comply with the broad community standards of reliable sourcing. If sourcing or content is contested, then per WP:CHALLENGE: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. When there are no sources (so no inline citations), and IMDb in an "External link" inappropriately supporting the content and title with no other sources, notability is not evident. A WP:BEFORE is usually performed and the criteria is a "minimum search". If that does not produce results then the criteria is satisfied so there is no need to cast even nicely worded aspersions. Otr500 (talk)
I've added content sourced to a reliable source completely focused on the cinematographer as seen here. Additional sources are listed above. Per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Furthermore, notability is dependent on significant coverage, which per WP:SIGCOV needs to be more than a trivial mention. The aforementioned source, as an example, is the opposite of a trivial mention. It is even more than significant; it is directly about the cinematographer. Erik (talk | contrib) 00:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
OTR's comments and talkpage regurgitation are out of date as a reliable source has been added to the article that show significant coverage in reliable source and other sources have been identified which can be added to the article., that have nothing at all to do with imdb. Renominating an article for AFD rather than adding identified reliable sources would be considered disruptive,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is not "out of date". Providing one source and IMDb (that conflicts with that source. See below) still does not even give the presumption of notability. Some editors think all subjects should have a title. Some think all subjects with a listing on IMDb is notable enough to create or keep a forever movie credit list of a pseudo biography. There are also some that think inclusion should be more than adding one or two links to a particular movie, backed by relying on IMDB. This does not provide sufficient evidence the subject is notable enough to pass WP:GNG, let alone the criteria of WP:CREATIVE, especially when inclusion is contested for years. I do not see the Sundance award alone as significant (needs reliable source) to tip the scale, and movie industry sources alone should be backed by sources according to our many policies and guidelines if they are deemed primary sources. IMDb is big money backed by big corporations, so that alone means Knowledge should consider being careful when thousands of articles are created and kept, especially when linked solely to that site, that provides ample advertising exposure for IMDb on Knowledge but offers little or nothing to the article.

- The one extra source (Detective Of Photography: DP Tom Richmond Starts From Ground Zero On Two New Movies), added before I added one to support one other film, gives some insight but is mainly about two films. It may not have been looked at (just listed) but it is in conflict with IMDb. The site seems to indicate a certainty that First Love, Last Rites and Slums of Beverly Hills was released "within a week of each other" (August 7 and 14) and the article (sourced with IMDb) shows 1997 and 1998 respectively. It is likely an IMDb editor made a mistake but offering one source that, backs up two films at best, is just not enough to argue that an embedded IMDb film credit list is sufficient for a biography on a subject according to policies and guidelines.

Many industry related sources might be found, such as A Conversation with Tom Richmond Through the Lens - Season 1, Episode 14 or this one (both from Craft truck) that is primary at best if reliable at all, but might only support one aspect. Just providing a couple of links is not sufficient. The opening paragraph of the lead is not supported by a reliable source and is not found in IMDb. That is content issues in one instance but lacking reliable sourcing cannot be disproved as being original research and certainly does not advance notability.

The Film WikiProject gives caution on using the site, gives restrictions, and this has been determined by many discussions, as well as at WP:CITINGIMDB and WP:ELP. WP:RS/IMDB states: The use of the IMDb on Knowledge as a sole reference is usually considered unacceptable and is discouraged. Its romanization of Chinese titles does not follow the standard. Reliable sourcing from established publications cannot be stressed enough. Anonymous or pseudonymous sources from online fansites are generally unacceptable. So, while itself discouraged as a source, IMDB might provide information leading editors to the preferable reliable sites. I was not involved in creating these "warnings" but when an article is advertised only by IMDb and Notability is questioned, even fans and project members should look closer than adding one source and claiming there is notability. One extra example of adding one source and claiming WP:SIGCOV does not make the subject notable. The current state of the article becomes important if the article cannot ever be improved to reflect a biography according to Knowledge standards. Why not show valid reasoning (I have looked) to support a biography on Knowledge (I am all for that and have actually been trying) instead of providing a possible temporary reprieve and a more than possible return to AFD? --- Otr500 (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Nearly 650 words above. See WP:WALLOFTEXT. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Reply: Then turn me into an advocate instead of trying to dismiss my comments. There are many members of ASC that have articles. "JUST" being a member and being in a category with up to 400 others, is not sufficient. Please note the last sentence of your provided WP:NEXIST: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. I would be happy to change my !vote with evidence. --- Short enough? Otr500 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

From the article talk page: "The position of Cinematographer (Director of photography in many cases) is important in the world of visual arts. The person is in charge of the camera, lighting, and grip department. In movie production in the US the position is usually someone associated with the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC). There are many such cinematography organizations the world over, including the newer Society of Independent Cinematographers (SIC) that may prove valuable to smaller productions. The list includes (not exhaustive) British Society of Cinematographers (BSC), Asian Cinematography Awards (ACA), , Australian Cinematography Society (ACS), French Society of Cinematographers (Association Française des directeurs de la photographie Cinématographique or AFC), Association of Polish Filmmakers, and many others. If recognition is noted according to our inclusion standards, and there is some significant coverage for a biography, there should be no reason notability would not be established.

There generally needs to be a defining point when a cinematographer becomes prominent, a tilting point for a presumption of notability, enough for recording on Knowledge. This is usually advanced by substantial or significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. The receiving of a prestigious award (usually national or international) or other critical acclaim, is a good indication. There are many such awards, such as the Academy Award for Best Cinematography, BAFTA Award for Best Cinematography, IMAGO International Award for Cinematography, Asian Cinematography Awards (ACA), and awards presented by various organizations of respective countries.

Just being included on IMDb is not an acceptable criteria. It is a starting point but Knowledge has grown so that just having a title, a short dictionary lead, and a filmography section, supported only by IMDb, is not sufficient. At best it is a pseudo biography, a resume, which is covered under What Knowledge is not, and fails a host of WP:policies and guidelines.".

The Sundance award (Excellence in Cinematography-Drama) is one I do place prominence on when it generates enough attention and other notability aspects are evident. The source provided above shows the subjects name at the top, and some comments, but is mainly about the film and not the subject. A biography needs to present biographical information, not just a list of jobs, and although there is not a timeline for improvements there is a point when it should be more closely examined. The article was created in 2008 and tagged in 2008 and with a lack of reliable sourcing will likely not see any improvements required for a BLP and two notable films are lacking. Nobody will likely offer improvements after the fact so it might be subjected to a revisit at AFD if kept. Otr500 (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 04:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep per the sources provided post-nomination. He won a top award at the Sundance Film Festival, amongst others. Lugnuts 06:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep as above and per Erik's findings, there are definitely reliable sources that pass GNG out there, notable too. dibbydib (T ･ C) 07:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Casta Troy

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of the references cited in the article discuss him. As a matter, all of them are promotional links to the subject's music. A Google search of the subject doesn't bring up coverage in reliable sources. The award he is a recipient of is not notable. None of the subject's albums or singles have been critically reviewed. Versace1608 00:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 00:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 00:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 00:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete - I am voting delete for two reasons. The first reason is because it is filled with unreliable sources. Some of them are passing mentions, and some of them even cite his songs, which are absolutely not reliable. The second reason is that there is absolutely no content in the article besides his discography, which is also poorly sourced. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 01:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep Hi, I believe the article can be improved rather than deleting. with the sources, they are reliable sources in Ghana. Links such as; ghanaweb, pulse ghana, etc. Kwamevaughan (talk)

@Kwamevaughan: Those sources did not discussed the songs; they are simply promotional links and press releases. Versace1608 15:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 04:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete The subject fails WP:GNG and mostly rely upon primary sources. Abishe (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete and redirect to Philippine Idol. Deleting before redirect to prevent reversion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Philippine Idol finalists

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

Per WP:LISTPEOPLE - The lists of finalists and semi-finalists are already available on the show's article. Most names do not satisfy the WP:BLP requirements thus do not have inherited notability. There is no need for such low level profiling on a separate list. Ajf773 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 03:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it is similar:

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

Redirect to Philippine Idol: There's really no need for a separate page for a list of contestants since most (if not all) of the contents are in the main pages. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Redirect to Philippine Idol per above. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete and then redirect (to deter reverts to the consensus deleted list) per nom. Anything that needs to be said in the article is already said. There is no need to go into extra details into the bios of the non-notable people (if they were notable, they would have had an article with that bio already). --Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The result was speedy deleted G7 (non-admin closure). Raymie (t • c) 07:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

There's No Business... (1994 film)

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

This article is about a film that fails WP:GNG; none of the references provide significant, in-depth coverage or reviews of the movie. I completed a Google search and turned up nothing meeting Wiki standards. It also fails WP:NFO because it hasn't won major awards or been established as being particularly significant according to any other criteria. Delete. Citrivescence (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete as per arguments stated above. The complete lack of reliable sources mitigates against keeping this article, although the film is quietly hilarious in its own understated, British way. I knew it was going to be a long shot, since ""No-one knows about this film, and that's a fucking tragedy." Win some, lose some, eh? MinorProphet (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete one of a great many non-notable films we have articles on. I am in shock how many films we have articles on sourced only to IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence has been provided that this film qualifies as notable per WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)