Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 5 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

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. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Looch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article previously deleted by PROD. Unsourced, non-notable movie, which fails WP:NFILM JMHamo (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ——Serial 16:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Steven L. Tuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm afraid this article does not make any claim that would make its subject pass WP:NACADEMIC - yes, he has won awards, but they are all on university level with the exception of the one from the AIA, which I do not think is a prestigious enough award. When you ignore his own works, his pages on the websites of various organisations, calendar events and award proof, the only reference left is an article at Atlas Obscura - which is user-generated. In summary, seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. PJvanMill (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Week keep: Most of what I could find about him concerned his own publications; there are some blurbs from reviews of his History of Roman Art on Amazon.com, but I don't think they establish much. Most of his citations in other books seem to be for photographs he's taken. He has written chapters for at least two anthologies: A Companion to the Flavian Age of Ancient Rome, and The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rome, of which the latter at least suggests a degree of academic recognition, and makes me think that there's at least some evidence of notability. But beyond this, the problem is that he's not really discussed by independent sources: nearly everything cited in this article is the subject's own work. It needs independent sources. However, I'm not satisfied that the criteria for deletion have been met at this point. Would like to hear what experienced editors in this field have to say. P Aculeius (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete does not pass inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I disagree that the AIA award isn't prestigious enough. It's a national award, from a notable academic society, given to a single recipient each year; that's enough for WP:PROF#C2. Regardless, Tuck's textbook A History of Roman Art has been reviewed in multiple independent reliable sources , meeting WP:NAUTHOR, and according to this article in Classical World is widely used in teaching Roman art history, meeting WP:PROF#C4. Giving Rhodes' James F. Ruffin Lecture also indicates significant impact per WP:PROF#C1. – Joe (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll admit, there's definitely more out there than I thought. I can see NAUTHOR under criterion 4c, but NPROF criterion 4 requires several influential textbooks. I'm not sure I agree with you about NPROF criterion 2, as it says Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (emphasis mine). And while the James F. Ruffin lecture may indicate significant impact, I don't think it's sufficient evidence on its own. In summary, I think NAUTHOR is your strongest argument. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I think you meant WP:AUTHOR and WP:NACADEMIC, not N:AUTHOR and N:PROF. Changed accordingly, please revert me if I'm wrong. Don't think he meets #5 ("The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon"). As I read it, this is for something like the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics or similar appointments; I don't think that "Head of Classics at Miami University" is similarly prestigious (note that neither the department, nor the College of Liberal Arts have their own article, or even a paragraph in the article on Miami University). Not sure that the "Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching Award" satisfies No. 2 either. I think his strongest case is under #1, based on his publications. Having read the other comments above, I concur with your conclusion of weak keep. P Aculeius (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I do still stand by my nomination. WP:NACADEMIC explicitly admits that it "sets the bar fairly low", so, given that Tuck does not pass it (I do not think he meets any of the eight criteria), I can only conclude that he is not notable enough. I think we can all agree he is an edge case, though. PJvanMill (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Award winning, highly referenced, department head. Geo Swan (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Don't be deceived by the number of footnotes. Each of the current references is worthless for notability. PJvanMill (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Cobra characters#Croc Master. (non-admin closure) ——Serial 16:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Croc Master (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only source in the articles are the comics, a GI Joe novel, an "official" book, and a GI Joe book published by one of the companies that produced some of the comics. These all appear to be primary sources, not establishing notability. A WP:BEFORE search turns up user-generated databases, fan sites, and toy sales sites. GNG fail. Hog Farm (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Karan Arora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. The article states that he is a film producer but turns out he claims credit for non-existent films and films he had no involvement in . His notoriety comes from the fact that he has been charged with tax fraud in India and the UK and named as one of the most wanted con artists in the UK (where he seems to operate as "Sandeep Arora") . But this article does not cover any of that and is full of misleading, promotional and unverified information. M4DU7 (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Miscreant (New Zealand band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Inactive for more than a decade, but no evidence at all that they were ever anything more than a local rock band playing the bars of Auckland. The Music.net.nz is a community blog site (half the contributors appear to be in bands themselves), and the The Cheese is another Wordpress blog that says nothing more than "one to watch out for". The prose in the article is copyvio from the other sources, which is a biography provided by the band for artist pages on online radio stations. Richard3120 (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the band's sole album, because it is sourced to the same non-RS sites and shows no evidence of notability:

Complicated Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Richard3120 (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, definitely not self-promotion as the article has only just been created, but the band split up over ten years ago. Richard3120 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Red Jackal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character. A WP:BEFORE search does not turn up coverage in independent, reliable sources. As the article is completely unsourced, a merge would not be appropriate. A redirect would also not be the best, as Red Jackal (disambiguation) should probably have this title. WP:GNG fail, and both a merge and a redirect have definite drawbacks as opposed to deletion. Hog Farm (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominated in good faith, but baselessly. Suggest nominator gain more experience in what WP:Notability really means. (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Nova Central School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is just a list of schools included in the former school board zone. Article contains no historical or background information on the school board itself and is quite unnotable.--User19004 (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

CloudByte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG Sources are all PR pieces, no SIGCOV Rogermx (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, with support continually growing in that direction over the much-extended life of this discussion. The opinion of the nominator, as a blocked sock, is given no weight in this discussion. BD2412 T 23:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Onyeche Tifase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indepth coverage anywhere. A couple of press releases, and news articles about her appointment, and an interview in a possibly unreliable source where the journalist says that she is his "date". Nothing in RS to indicate notability. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 11:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I'm seeing CNBCAfrica, DW and a handful of coverage about her affiliation with Siemens, but the article probably needs more clean up should the consensus be is to keep it to get rid of advert notes. --Infogapp1 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • keep Seems to meet GNG. Article needs some work, but no reason to delete
  • Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:BASIC. ——Serial 16:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz 21:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Star Breach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to have received the necessary attention to meet WP:N yet. A forum, some blogs, a gaming website, and that's about it. Nothing reliable in Google news, only 65 Google hits overall is pretty low for a current subject from an English speaking country. Fram (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Fram thanks for reviewing the article. I put it up as it's a game that's relatively recent, having just come out of testing several months back, but it's already gaining traction with some of the popular tabletop gaming Youtubers like Guerrilla Miniature Games and Tabletop Minions (even being voted game of the year by Gaminggeek). It's also talked about quite a bit on online gaming forums such as Dakkadakka and Lead Adventure Lowyhong (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz 21:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Mana Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I recognize the recent improvments in the article, but I still consider it promotional and based upon promotional sources. DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion: GNG for businesses state that a business should have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There are multiple sources listed about this business. MurielMary (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A notice suggesting that some of the comments from this discussion may be implemented was placed on the talk pages of the articles in question. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Psilocybin mushroom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicate content from Psilocybin Saberking321 (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If you check the articles you will find that the content is in fact the same. Saberking321 (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Point of information: "Psilocybin mushroom" is not a mushroom. It is a term which can be used to refer to many different fungi which contain psilocybin. Saberking321 (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America 10:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America 10:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that both sides are right here. There is a genuine basis for 2 different articles; and the content of the two existing articles overlaps excessively. What is required is thorough editing to cut them down to focus only on their individual topics, one the chemical and the other the various kinds of mushroom. The law on the two things is in fact different, for example; and the mushrooms have been venerated by the Aztecs when they had no knowledge of the chemical. Therefore, there is content on chemistry which is not needed in more than short summary form in the mushroom article, and content on ritual and other usage which is not needed in the chemical article. The formal result should therefore be Keep but nom is correct that the articles as they now exist need radical editing.
Editors may wish to look at the articles on the Foxgloves (Digitalis, a genus of plants) and Digoxin (a chemical derived from them) for how this separation of topics can be achieved for a Plant + Product combination. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a good starting point, however may I note that while Digitalis is a genus, psilocybin occurs in many different genera. The only thing in common between different species of fungi containing psilocybin is the fact that they are fungi and that they contain psilocybin. This makes it very difficult to include any information which is not either about psilocybin or about fungi in general. We could similarly have a page called "Red mushrooms" or "Poisonous mushrooms", both clearly silly as there is no biological connection between the various species grouped together under the heading. Saberking321 (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Chiswick Chap has the right of it. We should have two separate articles without much overlap. We do have one expansive treatment plus what amounts to a large excerpt with some added frills. Keep but someone will have to lose an afternoon to disentangle these. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

List of wedding guests of Prince Felipe and Letizia Ortiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seriously? Knowledge (XXG) is not a tabloid. This is vapid tabloid content, and also substantially unsourced. Did you know that the Prince of Hanover declined the invitation, but came to the banquet? I didn't want to know. Sandstein 17:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

North Battle Mountain, Nevada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

North Battle Mountain was a railway station and had no post office. It probably is not notable, see WP:STATION, WP:GEOLAND. Carlson states that North Battle Mountain is a station on the Western Pacific Railway. Newspapers.com has a number of references to North Battle Mountain, mostly concerning the railroad. There was one newspapers.com reference to a child being born to parents who lived there. Other than that, there are not many references that mention North Battle Mountain. North Battle Mountain is not mentioned in ghosttowns.com, is not mentioned in the 1941 WPA guide, is not mentioned in "Nevada Ghost Towns & Mining Camps" (Paher), is not mentioned in "Nevada Post Offices" (Gamett & Paher).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Cxbrx (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Cxbrx (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Unlike a lot of the western railroad sidings that come up here, there are many references to people actually living in North Battle Mountain. This is the article about the couple living there who had a baby; in the same article, it mentions a different family that also lived in North Battle Mountain. This article mentions a different family that lived there a few years later. This article mentions two more families who lived there; this article mentions the first of those families again, and this one mentions the second. This article discusses a resident who hosted a local bridge club. This article mentions another family that lived there. This article mentions another resident. This article mentions another resident. This article mentions a sheep ranch there. This article says that a proposed closure of the North Battle Mountain station was protested because it would inconvenience county residents. And that's not including other articles about the station itself, or road construction there, or mining claims in the area. It seems clear to me that North Battle Mountain was a community where people lived and conducted business, not just the site of a railroad station. TheCatalyst31 02:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time to take a look and do the clippings. Stations and section houses often have residents, but does the coverage meet WP:GEOLAND #2 "given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." Is there non-trivial coverage? The news items seem to be trivial to me. The fact that there was no post office, that it does not appear in the 1941 WPA source and Carlson mentions it as a station indicate how minor and non-notable the place was. I'd like to see some articles about the place and how important it is/was. I did see an article about attempting to fight the closure of the station, but that falls under WP:STATION. Mainly, I'm looking for some consistency in what constitutes a notable place, at least in Nevada. I've been going through articles and identifying possible AfDs, see my talk page. I'll be introducing these one at a time to the AfD process. Cxbrx (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • So I was thinking about the newspapers.com links that TheCatalyst31 posted above and I'm not sure if any of them are notable and/or non-trivial enough to include in the article. I agree that people lived at this location, what is up being questioned is whether the location is notable. We need to provide "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources". I agree that the Reno paper is a reliable source, but the coverage seems to be trivial. Cxbrx (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Raffi Ahmad. As discussion participants seem equivocal as to which parent article should be the target of this merge, I assert closer's discretion to choose the parent for whom the child appears to have been named as the closer topic, with a mention to be added to the article of the other parent. BD2412 T 23:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Rafathar Malik Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR, all the coverage is of the 4 year olds parents and there is non meaningful coverage of Ahmad. So tl;dr very poorly sourced article about a 4 year old child. Praxidicae (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train 17:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MT Train 17:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JavaHurricane 09:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz 21:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Gavin Warren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable child actor, the majority of the roles are unnamed or brief appearances lasting less than 3 minutes and there is no significant coverage. Perhaps too soon but the sourcing for a 12 year old child blp needs to be rock solid and they simply aren't here. Praxidicae (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep The subject mentioned above is a notable child actor. The article has met the requirements stated in WP:ENT. The article should not be deleted since the subject is yet to make more contributions hence the article can be expanded in the coming years. Thats my opinion. December200 (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"Yet to make more contributions" is irrelevant, if he becomes notable, there will be an article, but we're not here to predict the future. Also what sources support your assertion of GNG? Praxidicae (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train 17:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete the roles to date do not meet notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete or Draftify: The subject is getting coverage—for example, the Houston Chronicle article—but he may fall shy of WP:NACTOR, with only two roles, to date, that might pass the first criterion. Given his young age, I tend to agree with the nominator; however, since he has soon-to-be-released projects, I'd have no problem with the article being moved to "draftspace". Dflaw4 (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JavaHurricane 09:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep- The fact that you said the roles are under 3 minutes is an assumption and not a fact and last time I checked the Houston Chronicle is notable and even has its own Wiki page. So yes that does count of press coverage.Thoroughbredwinner (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Also it could be moved to the draft space to see if these "lead roles" are legitimate.Thoroughbredwinner (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

KeepJust did some research and found out that he is also featured in latimes and the Sanfransico chronicle (Added a couple links) . Two notable sources. So, this settles whether he is notable or not. Also he gave Ryan Gosling a run for his money at the red carpet. He is notable enough to pass the GNG guidelines being he has reliable sources and press coverage.YoungPicasso777 (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

https://www.sfchronicle.com/life/celebrities/article/Ryan-Gosling-s-biggest-red-carpet-competition-13329219.php refers to him as a costar not an extra or just an appearance. YoungPicasso777 (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep After reading the cited articles, I think the subject meets all the requirements for WP:NACTOR. He has multiple appearances in notable films where he has a significant roles. Three of the films he has had a role in have their own Knowledge (XXG) articles, meaning that they are notable. I haven't watched those films myself, but given that his roles are discussed in the cited articles, I would say that they are significant. It's clear that the article meets GNG. There are 13 cited sources, and although all of them are certainly not reliable, at least 5 are from reliable publications (LA Times, Houston Chronicle, local news). So, the article also meets verifiabilty. However, there is information in the article that isn't mentioned in the sources and isn't verifiable. I find it much more appropriate to remove the unverified information from the article than to delete it entirely. Specifically, the Personal Life section can be removed, along with some of the info in the Career section. I would also suggest removing the unreliable sources, such as the subject's personal webpage, and to remove irrelevant links in the Further Reading section. Maxwell.obscure (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2024 UTC
  • Keep sufficient RS cover him to measure up to our inclusion criteria. Geo Swan (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Afa (mythology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a stub article on a supposed Samoan god that, quite frankly, I'm not sure actually exists. Or, at least certainly not in the form that is described in this article. Until a couple of years ago, this article had a second sentence stating that "Afa" was simply the Samoan word for "storm", and not the name of a deity. And while that sentence was rightly removed for not being reliably sourced, it may have actually been true. The single source currently listed in the article is the only source I could find in web searches, and upon actually reading it, I discovered that the information presented there does not actually support a single bit of information here. Instead of a Storm God from Samoa, it describes a soul-eating demon from the island of Fakofo. I also searched through all of my physical books on world mythology, and was unable to find a single reference to this supposed god. So, does anyone know of an actual reliable source that supports the claim that "Afa" was the name of a Samoan storm god? If not, the article should be deleted, as presenting non-verifiable information. Rorshacma (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn by Nominator - Sorry, I should have done this earlier, but I forgot it was still open. Austronesier's rewrite of the article to be about an actual verifiable topic instead of something of dubious legitimacy have addressed my initial concerns about the misinformation that was previously presented here. There is certainly further room for discussion on potential Merging or Renaming of the article, but straight deletion is no longer appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I found a reliable language reference that states afà means cyclone in Tokelau, which includes Fakaofo: (p 14) ☆ Bri (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that was the assertion that had been previously made in the article - that the word "afa" meant storm, or similar, but did not actually equate to the name of a storm god. And the source currently in the article says that "Afa" was an alternate name of the demigod-devil more commonly known as "Toikia" that preyed on humans, without any mention of it being associated with storms. That is my main concern here - it seems like someone combined the fact that the word "afa" meant cyclone and that Afa is also an alternate name of the demi-god Toikia, and created this unverifiable Samoan storm god.
Also, as a note, the "Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology" being used as a source took its information on the entry for "Afa" from this paper. That paper also makes no mention of any of the information in this Wikiepdia article, and also states that "Toikia" was the more common name for the demigod. And while I can find other information on Toikia, this is the only source I can find asserting that "Afa" is even an alternate name for him. Rorshacma (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment In its current wording, the information is spurious. The above cited article in the Journal of the Polynesian Society contains the Tokelauan (not Samoan!) myth about an aitu or supernatural being called Toikia/Afā. For some reason, someone conflated this with the word afā, which means 'storm' in many Polynesian languages, including Samoan and Tokelauan (cf. here on p.134). The Russian WP article ru:Афа is much better sourced and structured, and could serve as a starting point for improving the en.WP page (plus this source). The page should then be moved to "Afā (mythology)". But then, I am not quite sure whether the whole thing meets WP:GNG. –Austronesier (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JavaHurricane 09:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as stub. As noted above, I have removed all spurious information, and the remaining information is well-cited. Actually, this page is a perfect candidate for merging into a broader article, but AFAICS, there is no apt merge target page. –Austronesier (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Tumulus#Modern barrows. Spartaz 21:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Willow Row Barrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article that serves as promotion for a company Sacred Stones that builds these modern barrows. Originally the first reference was to the company itself. Most of the references read like advertising, created by a SPA who has added promotional content on a number of barrow articles. Also the company built a modern long barrow first so this is a minimal claim of significance to be the first modern round barrow as opposed to a long barrow. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak delete I initially accepted this through AfC as it had some coverage in decent sources and I figured there would be more due to the claim of notability of being the first of its kind in a thousand years, however doing a more thorough WP:BEFORE search I'm not able to find much that is not already in the article, and most of the sources are moreso about the company or the idea of modern barrows in general than this specific one. I tend to be generous with notability when it comes to topics that have little commercial potential and I mentally classified this on the "historic building"/"NGEO" side of things without considering the possible promotional aspects. But looking more closely I think the sourcing is probably not enough to pass GNG. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Atlantic306 is being quite nasty and high handed here, I am sorry to say. I read his/her comments and addressed them on the talk page, properly and promptly and I set out my relationship with another modern barrow where my wife is at rest. I used a link to a developer's website (supporting a point made in the Church Times). The citations he/she thinks are inadequate are in the Guardian from its main architecture critic, and in academic journals. This was discussed on the talk page by me. Nevertheless this has been subject to inuendo that I am promoting a company I have no role in and that the citations are puff pieces but they are serious writing in national newspapers. Finally, as you see, there are pages for other barrows and cemeteries. By all means edit, or even delete, but please lay of the insensitive and unpleasant innuendo. Beninruses (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JavaHurricane 09:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If redirect or merge, where to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz 14:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Titas Brian Ahumuza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional article on fashion promotor. All of the references I checked is promotional ,not informative, or is a pretend interview wherethe person says as he pleases. Awards given for the purposes of allowing figures in an industry to claim they've received one are advertising, not information. I recognize the difficulty of separating advertising from genuine content in this subject field, but this is I think so far on the advertising side that it cannot beusefuly reritten. See adjacentAfD on one of his promotional projects. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I've explained the problems with identifying African media as promotional. The author is a regular writer and photographer for The Observer, one of the largest private newspapers in the country. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Indy beetle, then no reports from the Outlook can be used as it is not independent of the subject. JavaHurricane 10:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


Nissanka Senadhipathi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG - most of the coverage is non-independent, and the article reads as a paid advertisement. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: This article is not paid as an advertisement, User:The Squirrel Conspiracy do not fabricate false comments based on assumptions and without proper evidences. Also if most of the facts aren't non-independent, other editors are welcome to makes the errors legitimately adhering to Knowledge (XXG) policies. This article should not deleted from Knowledge (XXG). Every single facts about this living person has been taken from reliable sources. Last warning! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinushan w77 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: Do not nominate this article for soft deletion. Nissanka senadhipathi is a very famous entrepreneur and a retired military personality. All facts about this person in this article is fully accurate and creator has taken from reliable sources. Many people search about this person according to google statistics. I suggest to publish this article. Thanks Chamani lakma (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC) — Chamani lakma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck as a CU-confirmed sockpuppet of Dinushan 277 creffett (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz 14:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sassan Dieter Khatib Shahidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable resume of a non notable entrepreneur. no coverage in english or fa, likely paid for PR. Praxidicae (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm a bit surprised at the "no coverage in English or farsi" claim, as there clearly is coverage in English, and since he is active in Dubai I would except the second search to be in Arab (which I'm incapable of). Coverage includes this full article in The National (Abu Dhabi) from 2015 (the same newspaper also features him as an expert in other articles like here, with a short note about him; the same happens e.g. in the Arabian Gazette). Enterprise Asia wrote a long profile of him when they awarded him the "Most Promising" award in 2016. In 2019 The Recycler gave a long summary of a 2 hour interview he gave to Game Changers AsiaOne features him as a "leader". Tahawultech also interviewed him. Arabian Business interviewed him as an expert. Oh, and he's married to Nicole Rodrigues. It would be good if someone could look for sources in Arabic. Yo delete this because there is "no coverage in English" seems rather bizarre. Fram (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Since when is being married to someone a reason for keeping? I did look in Arabic and found nothing but considering he's Iranian, I also looked for sources in farsi/persian and it was the same, further the sources you included are almost all name drops or interviews and are not independent coverage. this is a non notable award. Praxidicae (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say that being married to someone is a keep reason, but it would ake a good redirect target at the very least. How is e.g. this not independent coverage? It is an interview, yes, but a lot of it is about him, not just an interview about the company. In fact, I think all sources I gave are independent coverage, not sources affiliated with him. How is the Asia One page about him not independent, or a name drop or interview? It is a full profile of him in a reliable source. Fram (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I have looked in Arabic and found nothing, which is odd as he has a very distinctive name. Mccapra (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep is a notable entrepreneur hence being nominated in different awards of entrepreneurs in U.A.E. Sidedeans —Preceding undated comment added 09:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete In Arabic there's only 2 websites mentioned his name among other names. Also about "Business Leader of the Year 2014 in Meed Awards", really! first of all this award non notable one, also the linkٍ said "Among the recipients were" as there's a lot of recipients! and sources (most of them not mentioned info. that used for): (13/12/4) taking about the award, (11) main page of website, (10) not mentioned Sassan, (9) twitter, (8) only mentioned his name once on long article, (7) main page of website, (6/5/2/3) I don't know if this website reliable, (1) not work for me. So from what I read, he is non-notable person, and maybe he can mentioned with few details about his company/award on his wife article --Alaa :)..! 13:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is consensus that sufficient interest by sources exists for the subject, and will continue to in the foreseeable future. Arguments on the basis of BLP1E were less convincing. El_C 19:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Derek Chauvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting this at AfD per Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2020 June 4. Please consider whether the subject meets Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines, keeping in mind WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E. The content of the article may be accessed in the history. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete this article is a fork of Killing of George Floyd, there is essentially no information in it which isn't in that article. The "Background" and "Involvement in the killing of George Floyd" sections, which make up most of it, were copied and pasted from Killing of George Floyd (without attribution, making this article a copyright violation). The remaining content doesn't offer anything which isn't covered in that article, aside from a few trivial details such as his marital status. Furthermore WP:CRIME says that someone known in connection with a criminal event shouldn't have a standalone article if they can be adequately covered in some other article. That is clearly the case here as all the information in this article is also in Killing of George Floyd. WP:CRIME also advises against having articles on alleged perpetrators of crimes who have not been convicted, here the subject hasn't. Hut 8.5 17:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Hut 8.5 As an experienced contributor I am sure you are aware that our deletion policies call upon us to evaluate whether the underlying topic of an article is notable, based on all the available references, not judge it on its current state.
    • BLP1E does not bar covering individuals best known for a particular event in a standalone BLP article, when the individual is central to the event, and their is sufficient RS coverage of them. Chauvin is central, and extensively covered in RS.
    • Chauvin has had press coverage, prior to the killing. Several other civilians died, in multiple events where he played a role. There is press coverage of those multiple earlier events. There is press coverage of his wife, Mrs Minnesota 2018, calling him a sweet guy. Of course, prior to the video of him killing Floyd went viral, that press coverage would have fallen far short of our 2020 inclusion standards. But the earlier events completely erode assertions that Floyd was an instance of BLP1E.
    • You quote a passage from WP:CRIME, "shouldn't have a standalone article if they can be adequately covered in some other article". Well, that is just it. He can't be adequately covered in other articles. Some individuals want to have a redirect to a subsection of Killing of George Floyd#people involved. Previously it redirected to Killing of George Floyd#persons involved, and prior to that someone linked to Killing of George Floyd#police officers. Do you really think it makes sense for the link in George Floyd protests to Derek Chauvin to send readers to a subsection of Killing of George Floyd? Really?

      And what about his wife's divorce proceedings against him? This is also widely reported. Widely reported is that, even though she is out of work, she has waived her right to claim spousal support. Widely reported is that his notoriety has triggered death threats against her. Also reported that there were false reports Chauvin's squad car partner was his wife's brother. His brother-in-law is a police officer, but in the neighouring city of St. Paul

      The earlier disciplinary hearings; his wife's praise of his character; the divorce proceedings, would all be easier to cover, neutrally, and with less risk of original research, in a standalone article. Geo Swan (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

      • There are situations in which it's appropriate to delete an article on the basis of its current state. One of those is when it duplicates another article. The only reason it doesn't qualify for WP:CSD#A10 is the fact that the title is suitable for a redirect. Yes, I do absolutely think it's reasonable to direct the reader to Killing_of_George_Floyd#People_involved, which includes biographical material about the subject and where the rest of the article covers the other aspects of the topic. Any appropriate biographical article will have to include substantial encyclopedic material about the subject which can't be effectively covered in the article about the killing. It's not appropriate to write an article about him just so we can write about his family and his divorce, which is probably a one-liner at most. You are in any case violating BLP by making claims about these non-public figures without sources. If we want to write an article about him it will need to be an actual biography which discusses his life up to the incident and anything significant which happens to him afterwards - something along the lines of Timothy McVeigh. It doesn't look like we can do that, at least not yet. Hut 8.5 09:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per Hut. No indication, yet, that the subject warrants an stand-alone article. ——Serial 17:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete/Redirect to Killing of George Floyd. Like previously stated, Chauvin is only notable for killing George Floyd, so WP:BLP1E applies.  Bait30   17:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The article link currently shows a redirect. To discuss whether this is a valid subject for an article, see the expanded version here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't really have a preference whether the biography of Chauvin is on a stand-alone page, or merged into another page. However, the WP:BLP1E policy and the WP:BIO1E guideline suggest having a separate article (not a redirect), whereas WP:CRIME suggests a redirect, and WP:PAGEDECIDE suggests doing whichever is better for the reader's understanding.
    • WP:BLP1E has a three-part test: We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: 1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - this is the requirement everyone focuses on, but it's only the first of three. 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. - definitely not Chauvin. He is not now, and is unlikely to become, a low-profile individual. 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - again, definitely not Chauvin. It was a significant event, his role was substantial, and it was very well documented by multiple videos and like every press outlet in the world at this point. So, BLP1E does not apply, because #2 and #3 are not met.
    • WP:BIO1E, part of the WP:BIO subject-specific notability guideline, suggests a stand-alone page: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate..
    • The WP:CRIME guideline (also part of WP:BIO) says, for perpetrators: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Knowledge (XXG) article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size. I don't think there is any concern with article size at Killing of George Floyd, so it seems WP:CRIME suggests a redirect.
    • WP:PAGEDECIDE is another applicable guideline (part of WP:N). It suggests we should do whatever serves the reader best. Levivich  18:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
We're certainly not serving the reader best by presenting the same content in two different places. Passing BIO1E doesn't mean you get to have an article, it just means an article can't be deleted for failing BIO1E. Same for BLP1E. Even if Killing of George Floyd does need to be split up that doesn't mean we get to have a stand-alone article here, because there's only a paragraph of biographical content in there, and that would likely remain even after a split. A standalone article only makes sense if there's a large amount of biographical content which doesn't fit into Killing of George Floyd. Hut 8.5 19:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Even though we are all volunteers here, sometimes what we do is hard work. Working on covering controverial topics requires us to work harder than usual. You are absolutely correct that it is best to avoid having two or more articles duplicate the same material. However, if we keep Derek Chauvin we should make sure we watch out for duplication, and contradiction between it, Killing of George Floyd, and the other related articles, in exactly the same way we do with all the millions of other related articles on the wikipedia. Geo Swan (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep No, Hut 8.5 "The Killing Of George Floyd" article only needs basic information about Derek Chauvin. The Derek Chauvin article should go into more detail about this very infamous person, such as the eighteen prior complaints against him and his marriage and subsequent divorce proceedings. Derek Chauvin is a similar figure to Gavrilo Princip (for which an article exists) in that their actions triggered some very serious events even though they were both previously obscure. WP:GNG has been met. More relevent information is sure emerge about Derek Chauvin, consequently I support Strong Keep for this artcle for reasons outlined by Geo Swan. Flaviusvulso (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Here's why: WP:A10: The new article significantly expands on the text about Chauvin in the article about the killing, including background information, information about his arrest, charges and detainment status, and his marriage. WP:BLP1E: The article does not satisfy nr. 3: The event is highly significant and Chauvin's role is substantial, as the catalyst of the whole incident and the following protests and unrest. WP:CRIME: This is one of the, if not THE most documented, talked about and influential crime in the United States since 9/11. Chauvin's involvement is well documented. We have articles about James Holmes (mass murderer) and Dylann Roof that should be deleted if we can't allow an article about Chauvin.Kebabpizza (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
We also have an article about George Floyd now, who is notable only for being killed by Chauvin. It makes no sense to have a separate article about Floyd, but not Chauvin.Kebabpizza (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, I would like to update the article with newly-released information from Chauvin's personnel file. That is impossible with the current hard protection of the article. Please make the community able to expand the article so that people can make an opinion on an expanded article.Kebabpizza (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
We do have an article on George Floyd for now, but there is currently a proposed merge discussion.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per BLP1E /CRIME. To write so much about a suspected criminal (charged but not yet convicted despite the fact there's strong video evidence) is not appropriate for WP. In addition, we don't know how much of that history will be relevant, that will be a factor to be determine in the court case, and if it becomes clear that, say, this guy has a past as interesting as some serial killers (HYPOTHETICAL, I DO NOT KNOW), that might warrant a number of secondary sources that go on about his mental state to give us a reason to have a standalone article. But that won't happen until he's convicted. BLP demands we avoid this until that point. --Masem (t) 21:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep We have articles about Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell. We have news about Chauvin's divorce and details about three previous incidents of police brutality and/or officer-invoved shootings that don't belong on Killing of George Floyd. The templates on Killing of George Floyd are schizophrenic. First one wants people to split the article into multiple articles because it's unwieldy, and then two more templates want the split off articles to be merged back with it. And Derek Chavin is a third. There are plenty of articles that have one or two sentences about a person that are kept. There is a rush to delete this that smells biased to me. Kire1975 (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Killing of George Floyd per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. He is notable for exactly one event: the killing of George Floyd. His past misconduct, or his marriage, have exactly zero notability. Thus the best way to cover him is in the context of George Floyd. Perhaps if convicted he might warrant a standalone article, but not now. CaptainEek ⚓ 00:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Okay, care to explain further your assertion "His past misconduct, or his marriage, have exactly zero notability" further?
I am concerned that the delete opinnion you left here reflects an unfortunately common misinterpretation of our key policies. We are supposed to keep our personal opinions to ourselves. I think NPOV applies not only to when we add new content to articles, but to when we weigh in in AFD as to whether or not a topic measures up to our standards for notability. Chauvin's notability doesn't rely on my personal opinion he is notable. It doesn't rely on your personal opinion he is not notable. It should rely on the opinions of reliable sources, and, whether you like it or not, they have written about him, in detail. They have written about him beyond his role in Floyd's killing.
We have some special purpose notability guidelines, like WP:POLITICIAN. Individuals who hold a Federal office, individuals who win a Nobel Prize, or a Pullitzer, ore were awarded a Victoria Cross we consider notable, even if they would not otherwise measure up to GNG. But most of our BLP articles are about individuals with multiple notability factors, where each of those notability factors, by itself, wouldn't make them notable. For most of our BLP articles we do a kind of notability arithmetic calculation, and add up the notability from all the notability factors.
I am not an RS, you are not an RS. Some tabloids, publications we would not consider RS, have reported on Chauvin. Some of the damaging mis-information comes from them. But that tabloid reporting is drowned out by solid reporting from RS that does not lapse from WP:NOTNEWS.
Is your argument equivalent to saying, "If I were chief editor of the New York Times I would prohibit my reporters from writing anything about Derek Chauvin, other than his specific role in the killing, because I personally, consider that information beneath notice"? But you aren't a newspaper's editor-in-chief, are you? And, even if that were your day job, the wikipedia is not your newspaper. So, shouldn't we ignore your gut feeling, and rely solely on the judgement of actual RS? I suggest those actual RS have established his independent notability, even if you don't like it. Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Winning a Nobel prize, or a Pulitzer, expresses a life-time of achievement. For example, it's likely as not a Nobel prize winner would be notable with or without the prize. There is a life-time of work involved. Comparing Chauvin's notorious actions in one event to these persons who have received prestigious awards, for a life-time of work and achievement, is a poor analogy.
And I'm sorry but comparing Chauvin's actions to being awarded the Victoria Cross seems really demeaning. Victoria Cross "is the highest and most prestigious award of the British honours system" (first line in Knowledge (XXG) article). "It is awarded for valour 'in the presence of the enemy' to members of the British Armed Forces." Chauvin's behavior does not in any way represent valour.
A bunch of "notability factors" do not exist on Knowledge (XXG). Generally, a person is notable based on RS covering the significant contribution that made a difference. If other RS happens to cover other biographical details that would be a plus, but that is not coverage that deems the person notable. Chauvin's marriage and past misconduct have zero impact on notability. These do not add much to the article either, maybe a couple of lines.
And, I don't know why there is an attempt to make an analogy between a Knowledge (XXG) editor and a newspaper editor-in-chief because Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper and NOTNEWS is a significant determining factor for notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding opinions - opinions are what we are here for, to present an argument based on policies (and guidelines). It is essentially a point of view stating how a given policy applies for keeping or deleting. If it was clear cut, there would be no need for AfDs, DRVs, RFCs or the various other types of discussions that take place on Knowledge (XXG). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Apokrif: This was weird procedurally because it was improperly speedily deleted after the AfD had started, and the DRV, which was speedily closed, said the article should be relisted at AfD, but with the redirect in place. If this is kept, the redirect will be overturned, if this is deleted, the redirect will stay. It's a bit unique. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete: I also believe that the above deletion arguments hold enough weight to warrant deletion. BLP1E and CRIME apply here. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a current events media outlet. I feel that once the dust has settled, then perhaps we can come back to this and revisit. Waggie (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.

  • So tell me, is does Chauvin likely meet the standard of Haward Brennan? I think clearly he does. I would further argue that The other officers in this event also meet that standard. I think the events here are extremely historically important. Casprings (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    Casprings, he might one day. See how many book sources there are in the Brennan article? Guy (help!) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    JzG No books. But the massive volume of coverage from global WP:RS makes him meet the standard, IMO.Casprings (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    Brennan's article is up for deletion at this moment, so we will have to see how this standard possibly shifts. However, Brennan would not be the standard here since he was a witness. If you want to compare articles, you probably need to cite examples of other killers, preferably within the same context. As for Guy's comment, I think he was referring to waiting whether coverage of Chauvin would persist after the news cycle ended (like it did with Brennan). Regards SoWhy 07:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    The standard is the amount of coverage, as outlined WP:GNG While I don't want to WP:crystalball, come on. You really think this guy is going to drop from coverage? People will be writing about this for decades.Casprings (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    Casprings, the standard is also set by WP:BLP1E. Are there sources about anything other than this one event? Guy (help!) 18:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete / Redirect — Per Serial Number 54129 & CaptainEek, either option works fine for me. Celestina007 (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete (or, I guess retain the Redirect that it already is or something?) - Err, what happened? This isn't a relisting; it's a new nomination. Relisting doesn't dismiss what participants have already said and require it to be said again. At any rate, I'll just copy/paste: This is a very straightforward WP:CRIME matter. Delete instead of merge/redirect because the main article doesn't need any of this content and Derek Chauvin is already a redirect. since we're now talking about that redirect, no reason for this last part. — Rhododendrites \\ 01:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with what someone said earlier about other incidents of misconduct, etc, but want to add that his profile and central identity will grow as the trial takes place. How did we handle George Zimmerman during this same timeframe post-incident? I'm fine with doing whatever we did then, now, as the circumstances are very similar. My ultimate point is that we can have this argument, but in the coming 6 months we will learn so much more about Chauvin and the trial that this discussion will be moot because he will be notable enough to have his own page by then. Aglo123 (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think Zimmerman's notablity has a lot to do with him being acquitted. If he'd been convicted and imprisoned then we likely wouldn't have heard anything about him until he was up for parole. --RaiderAspect (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems notable enough to have the article already, and will probably grow more and more relevant as the court case proceeds.TheLordOfWikis (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • At the very least Keep as redirect. This is a plausible search term and should be kept. I am neutral on whether the subject is notable for more than WP:BLP1E, at least for the time being. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect. I keep looking but not finding anything other than the one event. We don't have "biographies" of people who did this shitty thing once unless there is lasting coverage. I'm not convinced this will get lasting coverage, and it's way too soon to tell yet. There are a lot of notable murders, and a lot of articles on those murders where we have no separate article on the perpetrator - and we don't actually have this as a murder yet (what with innocent until proven guilty and all). Overall, WP:BLP1E/WP:BLPCRIME applies. Outraged does not amount to substantive coverage. Guy (help!) 21:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect, no article for now - I think this is a reasonable compromise until we get more information. Love of Corey (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. No basis for independent article. His wife filed to dissolve the marriage. So what? What is there to cover about that, that is in any way relevant or important or notable? She is not requesting spousal maintenance. Do the reporter or our editors here have any idea about spousal maintenance in Minnesota law? Rumors that his squad car partner was his brother-in-law. A rumor makes him notable? He had complaints filed against him. On how many were action taken? The only thing this fellow is notable for is in the death of George Floyd, and his role in that is already covered in Floyd's article. Kablammo (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep No, Hut 8.5 Killing Of George Floyd article only needs basic information about Derek Chauvin. The Derek Chauvin article should go into more detail about this very infamous person, such as the eighteen prior complaints against him and his marriage and subsequent divorce proceedings. Derek Chauvin is a similar figure to Gavrilo Princip (for which an article exists) in that their actions triggered some very serious events even though they were both previously obscure. WP:GNG has been met. More relevent information is sure emerge about Derek Chauvin, consequently I support Strong Keep for this artcle for these reasons and those outlined by Geo Swan. Flaviusvulso (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • — Duplicate vote: Flaviusvulso (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
  • The problem is that we can't give more than basic information about the subject now. The only thing you're suggesting we write about which isn't covered in Killing of George Floyd is his divorce proceedings, and writing about that at great length isn't an excuse for an article - at best it's a one liner. We don't keep articles on the basis that more information will emerge in the future (WP:CRYSTAL), we keep them on the basis of what's available now. Hut 8.5 06:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment No Hut, there is also the eighteen prior complaints against Chauvin. Eighteen is a highly significant number which strongly suggests that Chauvin has been involved in other notable controversies, the details of which are sure to emerge in his forthcoming trial. The trial itself also needs to be factored in to the considerations which we can be sure will further contribute to the notability of the subject. There was also the incident outside Chauvin's house which required a very large police contingent to protect. Flaviusvulso (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You are wrong. Evidence of other unrelated controversies will not emerge in the trial; they will be excluded from evidence as prejudicial. He will be tried on the pending charges, not past history. Kablammo (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
All of those are mentioned in Killing of George Floyd or could easily be covered there if desired. It already discusses the complaints against Chauvin. We don't keep articles on the basis that there might speculatively be more material to put in them in the future, we keep them on the basis of what's available now. The trial will be discussed in Killing of George Floyd and may well get its own article. Since the other officers involved have also been charged the trial will not be focused solely on Chauvin either.
Above I mentioned Timothy McVeigh as an example of an article about someone known for a crime. That's a biography: it outlines the subject's life in detail and includes lots of stuff which wouldn't be appropriate to include in Oklahoma City bombing. What you're describing here isn't a biography, it's a random collection of events picked from Killing of George Floyd. Unless we can write an encyclopedic biography of Chauvin we shouldn't try to. It's possible that more information about Chauvin may come out in the future which enables us to write a good biography, of course, but for the article to be kept now we need to have suitable content now. Hut 8.5 07:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
"Unless we can write an encyclopedic biography of Chauvin we shouldn't try to." By that argument many articles about ancient personages should not exist for want of sufficent material -- numerous biographical stubs exist on wikipedia and rightly so. Notability determines whether or not this article should be kept -- and in this case the subject is clearly notable. Google search returns 22 million plus results! Flaviusvulso (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not saying we shouldn't cover the topic, only that we shouldn't cover the topic in a standalone article. The topic will still be covered in Killing of George Floyd. Most biographical stubs are not comparable in that they aren't people who are only significant because of one event which we also have an article on where everything can be covered. This one is. Hut 8.5 11:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect - This article should either be kept, or redirected with history to Killing of George Floyd. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Do not delete Looking at our policies, this should either be a redirect or keep, I can't, for the life of me, figure out which is right. But deletion shouldn't be in the cards. There is no reason to think there shouldn't be a redirect at this title if we don't end up with an article here. Hobit (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    • OK, I'm going with IAR keep or, specifically the following: If the headlines of major newspapers are addressing someone by their name under the assumption that people will know who they are, we should probably we willing to host an article on them. I'm seeing this at the Washington Post "Bail set for Chauvin as Democrats unveil police reform bill" Fox has "Andrew McCarthy: George Floyd killing – Derek Chauvin's first court appearance". Things like that make me think we need an article. Hobit (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • delete and redirect: is this person really notable? Not particularly. The crime and the reprocussions are what is notable. This is an item on a BLP that shouldn't exist and I don't think SALTing should be too far from the table. I think this is a big old content fork and should be sent back to the article on the event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 21:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect It is highly likely that more information about this individual will become available in the coming months， even if all the information we have at the present can be found in the killing of Floyd article. If it is made into a redirect ow, it should still be made into an article once more information is available. The person is obviously notable. Reesorville (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete/redirect This person is the very definition of a "subject notable for only one event" and should not have an article as per WP:BLP1E. The only sources we have about him are from the last couple weeks. Come back in a year or two and see if there's anything notable about him that isn't a direct result of him killing of George Floyd. Maybe there'll be more detailed sources about his entire life, maybe he'll become notable in other ways, or maybe he'll remain simply the guy in that video. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge to Killing of George Floyd unless that article becomes too large, per WP:CRIME. Chauvin is a low-profile individual, but this does not exempt him from being covered on Knowledge (XXG) as his crime is a well-documented historic event. Thus the substance of the content should remain on Knowledge (XXG), but should be moved. userdude 00:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • IAR Keep per Hobit. If we're following WP:CRIME to the letter, the content should be merged. Editorially, I'm sure most of us prefer to keep relevant content clumped together under a single article rather than making a bunch of forks. But, this isn't about what we want. Our objective should be providing an accessible encyclopedia. If a reader sees the name "Derek Chauvin" and wants to look him up, they ought to find a dedicated article about him. userdude 10:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect/Delete & Redirect. Very rarely do I support deleting page history, but it is worth considering in this case since it's a controversial BLP without much to add. I've not made up my mind on that front, though. The arguments presented by Hut are most convincing. This is not the same situation as with the article on George Floyd (where specific effort has been made to delve into his entire life; compare to Trayvon Martin). If Chauvin has himself a second act, we can revisit it then. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐ 01:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect as a plausible search term for the controversy. Subject is not independently notable from the killing. --letcreate123 (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep because there's information pertaining to Chauvin that wouldn't necessarily fit in the main article on Killing of George Floyd, such as the many different complaints against Chauvin among other things. Others in this discussion have pointed out other "killers of notability" with articles, and because of the major reaction to Floyd's death worldwide in comparison to other police slayings such as Michael Brown, where that received only major coverage in America. That's just my two cents though. --Mannytool (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I think there is enough information about this person which is comming out which would not fit into the main article but has to be documented somehwere. He is becoming more and more infamous each day.★Trekker (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep while he became notable due to the recent incident, his checkered past has been well documented. There is enough material which would not be appropriate for inclusion in the Killing of George Floyd. Chauvin has received significant coverage in independent sources and has been disciplined 18 times over the course of his career.
      Condense list for page readability.
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    1. Logan, Erin (2020-06-02). "Officer accused of killing George Floyd was disciplined for pulling woman from car during stop". LATimes. Retrieved 2017-03-12.

      The article notes:

      The records provide some insight into Chauvin’s background, starting as a military police officer with the U.S. Army from September 1996 to February 1997 and again from September 1999 to May 2000. However, the records included little detail about the at least 17 times that Chauvin was the subject of internal affairs investigations by the Minneapolis department.

      Chauvin, who had worked with the department since October 2001, had been disciplined for only one incident during his tenure. It occurred in August 2007 in Longfellow, a neighborhood just south of downtown Minneapolis. Chauvin was accused of pulling a woman out of her car after stopping her for going 10 miles over the speed limit. The woman filed the complaint the next day. Investigators found that Chauvin “did not have to remove complainant from car” and that he “could’ve conducted interview outside the vehicle.” Further investigation showed that Chauvin’s squad car video camera was turned off during the course of the stop.

      Reports indicate Chauvin was previously involved in multiple shootings. In 2006, he shot and killed a suspect who allegedly had a gun. In 2008, he shot a domestic assault suspect, and in 2011, he fired at a man seen running from another shooting.

    2. Andrew, Scott (2020-06-01). "Derek Chauvin: What we know about the former officer charged in George Floyd's death". CNN. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

      The article notes:

      Before he knelt on Floyd's neck, Chauvin was the subject of 18 prior complaints filed against him with the Minneapolis Police Department's Internal Affairs. Police confirmed the complaints were filed but didn't detail why they were filed or what they entailed.

      Only two of the 18 complaints were "closed with discipline," according to a MPD internal affairs public summary. In both cases, Chauvin received a letter of reprimand.

      According to Communities Against Police Brutality, a Minnesota nonprofit that created a database of complaints against officers in the state, Chauvin received oral reprimands for using a "demeaning tone," "derogatory language" and other language that merited discipline.

    3. "'George Floyd: What we know about the officers charged over his death". BBC News. 2020-06-08.

      The article notes:

      Mr Chauvin was the most senior officer involved in Mr Floyd's arrest, serving for almost 19 years with the Minneapolis Police Department. His record of policing included both commendations and conduct complaints. There were at least 15 conduct complaints against him, the Star Tribune reported, citing records from the Minneapolis Police Department's Internal Affairs. Most of the complaints were closed without discipline. Mr Chauvin's personal files were heavily redacted, but there are details of one complaint from 2007. The complaint concerns allegations Mr Chauvin pulled a woman from her car and frisked her after she was caught driving 10mph over the speed limit.

    These are only a few of the sources currently released document his career and controversies. This would warrant a split as his history and career would not belong on the main page of George Floyd.

    Valoem 14:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

    @Valoem: But would he have received said coverage if not for this single event? All those sources you mention, cover his prior conduct just because of this event. In fact, if one limits the search to news articles before 25 May, one finds three mentions of his name: A puff piece about his wife, a short press report about a shooting he was involved in and that he returned to duty after said shooting. There is no coverage of any misconduct or anything like this and, that is the important part of WP:BLP1E, there probably would not have ever been any coverage had he not killed George Floyd. Regards SoWhy 14:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    EDIT: Those are not the sources I listed, my sources are LATimes, CNN and BBC have you reviewed those sources? Valoem 15:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    @SoWhy: WP:BLP1E states: "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". The wording here can be confusing, meeting all three of those means he should not have an article.
    1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
    We agree he does meet this condition.
    2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
    He already does not meet this condition given the significant coverage of his life. I didn't quote the full BBC article I linked (Source 3), but the source also says: "In 2006, Mr Chauvin was recommended for a medal of valour for his role in the shooting of a man who aimed a shotgun at officers." The article continues with his biographical information including his military service.
    3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.
    I think we can both agree he does not meet this condition. In total he only meets one of the three condition therefore per BLP1E he should have a separate article. Valoem 15:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Keep per above. His background is certainly relevant to the case, and we can expand this article as we find out more. This information would fit better here than the Killing of George Floyd article, which moreover is getting very long. Davey2116 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Keep Satisfies the criteria for inclusion under WP:BLP1E as explained by Valoem. Smartyllama (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Keep: I agree with the above mentioned arguments for keeping the article (background, historical reasons, similar pages about individuals that have not been deleted). In addition, there is also a moral argument for keeping the article: will help reinforcing the notion of police accountability in cases of abuse of power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacefish9 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Delete/redirect - BLP1E, just redirect to his crime, non-notable otherwise. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Delete/redirect Per WP:ONEEVENT KidAd 21:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Keep - I have voiced replies to some of the delete opinions, above, but haven't yet left my formal Keep.
    I think several of us have fully refuted claims of BLP1E.
    This is a big event, one of the top ten news stories of 2020. It is so big it can't be adequately covered in a single article. It is currently covered by a constellation of articles, including George Floyd protests.
    I think Police use of chokeholds, or similar, should link to Derek Chauvin. I started to work on some notes on Knee-on-neck chokehold. Floyd's death is not the first time this controversial technique has been a focus of public scrutiny. Now I think it would be better to have an article on all Police use of all chokeholds. Wherever police chokeholds are discussed Derek Chauvin should be linked. He is always going to be among the most famous police officers to kill a citizen with a chokehold.
    Readers, who came to the wikipedia to read about the Police use of chokeholds, who then click on a link to Derek Chauvin, are going to want to go to an article on Derek Chauvin. Sending them to Killing of George Floyd#Persons involved is a disservice to those readers.
    Should Police training link to Derek Chauvin? I think so. The following article questions why Chauvin, an officer with multiple disciplinary infractions, could have been given the authority serve as a "training officer". Geo Swan (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
    • "Police reforms long overdue". Rockford Register Star. 2020-06-10. Retrieved 2020-06-10. Make field training officer positions prestigious, well-paid assignments that only the highest performers qualify for. It's worth noting that Chauvin was assigned to an FTO position despite having 18 previous complaints filed against him. The day of Floyd's death, he had two rookies shadowing him. If you want better cops, find better teachers.
    • James Santiago Grisolia, MD (2020-06-11). "What Police Chokeholds Can Do to the Brain — George Floyd's death prompts new look at often overused police tactic". Chokeholds as used in law enforcement typically involve some combination of arms or batons putting pressure on the subject's neck and should be distinguished from the knee-on-neck that Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin applied to Floyd, a more aggressive and rarely sanctioned technique.
    • Strong keep per Geo_Swan, Kebabpizza, Kire1975, Casprings, Flaviusvulso, Davey2116. There is voluminous WP:RS on Chauvin per Google with 24 million hits on his name--clearly enough for a separate article. Although, it is certainly true that he is notable for his association with a single event, the voluminous WP:RS about his role in that event, his past history that is being reviewed with a fine tooth comb, make a content fork the only appropriate way to avoid having the event article explode beyond all reasonable proportions. WP:BIO1E says:
    If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.
    --David Tornheim (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Given the extensive coverage of previous use of force incidents beyond this one event/crime, and also the significant coverage of his marriage to a local celebrity and their divorce proceedings, this article clearly meets both WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E is therefore an unambiguous keep. VanIsaacWS 04:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm going to go with keep, because: (1) It's established custom and practice that when someone commits a killing that's very notorious, BLP1E goes out of the window (Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman, etc.); (2) BLP1E exists to protect people, and Chauvin has through his actions forfeited all imaginable right to our protection; and (3) There's clear evidence that our readers want to read about him on Knowledge (XXG), and no reason to deny them.—S Marshall T/C 13:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    No, no, a thousand times no. Nobody forfeits their right to our protection. Chauvin is still a person. StAnselm (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    Sure they do. In BLP1E, our "protection" reduces to "we won't link your name to your alleged crimes or involvement in bad things". Chauvin absolutely has forfeited that protection, and I'm not dehumanizing him by saying so.—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    I think you're forgetting that Knowledge (XXG) policy dictates that we must presume him to be not guilty. StAnselm (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    I carefully said "killing" and not "murder". Whether Chauvin murdered Flynn is for a jury to decide. But no credible source even attempts to pretend that Chauvin didn't kill him.—S Marshall T/C 19:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Arthur Read (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe it is not notable because it does not say why. Notability also counts on sources, and there are few sources. 2601:8B:C300:4A70:5C23:24AB:A241:C247 (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor--above text is taken from their request at WT:AFD. As for my own opinion, main characters from major TV shows/franchises seem easily notable and this merits a clear keep !vote from me. --Finngall 17:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is the main character of the popular TV series Arthur. I added two sources to the page:
    • Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, 1949 Through 2003 by Hal Erickson, McFarland & Co (2005) pp. 95–96
    • The Encyclopedia of American Animated Television Shows by David Perlmutter, Rowman & Littlefield (2018) pp. 44–45
I think that this is enough to demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

List of academic libraries in Nigeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This might be useful, but nothing is linked. Fuddle (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Really? So the only university libraries that exist in Nigeria are the ones that Knowledge (XXG) has covered? Thats a really extreme, extreme position -- especially when we know we have extreme systematic bias against African content -- @Lorstaking and Bduke: that is not a criteria for WP:LISTN -- it explicitely says "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" -- we should not be hiding knowledge because of our own inadequacies Sadads (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I completely agree about trimming the whole list to only include those names that have their own page.Bduke (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep- A library is an integral part of any university and in most cases, it is operated as an autonomous entity. The list is a demonstration of an attempt to fill one of the knowledge gaps on Knowledge (XXG) and so should be embraced as a content to be included on this platform. However, the list did not show the real identity of each library rather it mentioned names of the universities where those libraries were established. Most of the University libraries has a unique name and some of them have a stand-alone article on English Knowledge (XXG) eg: Federal University of Agriculture Abeokuta (FUNAAB)'s University library is Nimbe Adedipe Library.So, in this light, the list should be reshaped to capture the name of each library and be kept.Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep needs some improvements but some of the universities mentioned are notable. Nika2020 (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sadads. Mahveotm (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the information will be very useful to researchers and the page is in conformity with Knowledge (XXG) Notability and general guidelines User:Omorodion1 (talk) 06.58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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) 10:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hatfield Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable organization that doesn’t possess WP:CORPDEPTH & fails invariably WP:CORP. A before shows that a member of the organization might be somewhat notable but notability isn’t inherited & per se this organization doesn’t satisfy the relevant notability criteria Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thom Wolf (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A biography created in 2009, unsourced except to the subject's own website (a dead link). A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing; it was only mildly complicated by the existence of Thom Wolf (who so far as I can tell has never written a one-handed novel). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Irakli Bagrationi (1925–2013) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, non-notable pretender Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The interesting thing is that the modern family doesn't appear to be notable either. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

David Bagrationi (born 1948) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Johnpacklambert: you've voted twice on this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Oops, I hadn't noticed that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Captain Sheroo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about a Bollywood film, with not even a plot summary and sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since its creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing, not even the plot; nothing resembling WP:RS. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The one-word nomination is disappointing, and whilst not mandatory, no evidence of WP:BEFORE being met has been provided. Per WP:CSB I would not heavily weight the lack of English-language sources. Neither side's arguments prevail and as such the outcome is no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Tanbe10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability PERSIA ♠ 20:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PERSIA ♠ 20:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was pinged, above, so I dunno if that's cheating. But anyway... it meets the WP:7VIRTUES so there's a strong presumption to keep.
AfD is probably not really a super good place for articles as well put together as this. If OP feels compelled to destroy rather than create articles, there are probably many better candidates -- millions, probably. (In fact, I just went thru ten random articles, and two of them I'd delete for sure before I deleted this one, and four more on the borderline. So...) Herostratus (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

--PERSIA ♠ 05:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright. You may be on to something here. Maybe. If the sources are bad, that's different from being un-notable tho. There's nothing inherently wrong with Wordpress or any other platform. Blogs aren't usually fact-checked, so you're thrown back entirely on the writer's reputation and analysis of the text. You have to drill down a bit more -- cross check different sources to see if they're reporting the same facts without using a common source, and so forth. It's fairly involved.
One of the problems with figuring out notability for Iranian entities is that, after all, Iran is a fascist dictatorship. And I mean Tanbe10 is apparently part of a scene that the government doesn't like very much. And the government does have a penchant for shooting people it doesn't like very much. So naturally mainstream Iranian media is going to shy away from writing about them -- who wants to get charged with "spreading corruption on Earth" or whatever and then shot? This doesn't mean that a lot of people don't know about Tanbe10, listen to them, or are influenced by them. Maybe so, maybe not. Let's look deeper.
If it's "maybe they are", I'd shy away against deleting all this work until we can can find out more. There's no hurry to destroy material, here. Unless it's misleading. Is it?
Also, I note that you're nominating several other articles about Iranian musicians right now. Is there an overarching rubric under which you're doing this? Or is it just cleanup? Do have an opinion about Tanbe10 and/or the underground gangsta rap scene in Iran?
The refs need to be looked at in detail. There's work to be done here. I'll shoulder my share presently. Herostratus (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The point here is that fame and Notability are important OR Finding credit through Knowledge (XXG)!!--Persia ♠ 08:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, they're on YouTube. Herostratus (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. One point is that, as a fact on the ground, I believe that cultural entities are treated within their geopolitical context. (If not, they should be, in my opinion but also the opinion of many others I think, lest we become overly English-language-centric.) A cultural entity that is a big deal in a culture group -- I'm thinking a discrete country or language, particularly. (For instance... Estonia has a population similar to that of Richmond, Virginia (metro area). However, "the second-highest bestselling book in Estonia in 1993" has a bit more cachet, for our purposes, than "the second-highest bestselling book in Richmond, Virginia in 1993". The latter is info about a random third-rate niche market in a big country, the former about that market of entire famous country with its own language; you're saying its a major book for the entire Estonian language. The same principle would apply to Iran/Farsi. Reasonable people can disagree with this tho, but that would bend the Knowledge (XXG) a bit toward West-centrism and valorization of big countries, for better or worse.
Nowadays, people don't buy physical records, so traditional sales as you'd see in Billboard are less useful and we need to look at more modern media.
I see that Tanbe10 has 16,000 followers on Instagram. Is that a lot? I have no idea, but it sounds like a lot. Some of these would presumably be up for buying your songs and going to your shows. And of course a lot of other people who aren't Instagram followers would also. Is that a notable-size fan base? Their top YouTube videos (if I'm doing this right) have views of 30,000, 30,000, and 24,000. Is that a lot? 39,000 followers on Facebook, if I'm reading it right. They don't seem to be on Twitter (or anyway I don't know how to find them).
Let's see... picking a couple bands band which I happened to have written the articles for... the Horse Lords have, and deserve, an article. they have 2,300 Instagram followers. Their top YouTube song has 34,000 views, but then it seems to drop off (the next has 19,000, and the next less than 3,000 -- again, if I'm doing this right). However, they have some long-form videos (which Tanbe10 doesn't have, I gather) -- 34,000 for a 20-minute session video, and 19,000 for a full album, but it drops off quickly after that. 5,800 Facebook followers and 2,500 on Twitter, I think.
The Horse Lords are in mainly because of a long New York Times article. Let's look at a more normal band, The Dexateens (I also wrote this one), who are in based on normal critera -- having several albums and numerous articles about them. They have 1,800 Instagram followers, and their top YouTube song views are 28,000 and 26,000. 6,500 followers on Facebook, 1,900 on Twitter.
Both of these bands rate having articles, without question, because they are American and therefore they have lots of English-language articles about them, and immediate access to 330,000,000 potential fans and 463,000,000 total in the Anglosphere. Iran has 83,000,000 population for Tanbe10 to draw a core fan base from.
I'd have to say that Tanbe10 is easily more popular than these two bands. Popularity = notability. (I get that our definition of notability = sufficient available written articles; but in the real world, notability is based on how many people know about them, talk about them, go to their shows, look at their videos, n'est-ca pas? The real world matters some, or should.
It is true that we need sufficient proper refs (I haven't checked them). However, if an entity actually is notable in the real world, we should definitely lean toward wanting the article, so rather than trying to find notability by going by refs, we'd be looking for refs to support their real-world notability and hoping to find them, so we'd want to bend to being as loose as possible in vetting refs, I think.
Anyway... it looks like the real argument here comes down to "Delete: not from an English-speaking country". I don't think that's a good criteria. Herostratus (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Jim Justin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced article about a mayor, which literally just states that he existed, the end, and doesn't even try to demonstrate that he would actually pass WP:NPOL #2 at all. As always, mayors do not all get an automatic notability freebie just because they existed -- the notability bar that a mayor has to clear is the ability to write and source some genuine substance about the significance of his mayoralty: specific things he did in the mayor's chair, specific city-building projects he championed, and on and so forth. Just stating that he existed as a mayor in 33 words flat, and citing zero sources to support even that tiny amount of content, is not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The population of Vancouver, Washington is currently estimated at 184,463. Mayors of cities of 100,000+ are generally notable. However, it hovered around 40,000-45,000 during Justin's tenure. I know just because it exists elsewhere on Knowledge (XXG) it doesn't lend his case, but its current Mayor (Anne McEnerny-Ogle), her predecessor (Tim Leavitt), and his predecessor (Royce Pollard) all have articles on Knowledge (XXG). Pollard pre-dates the 100,000 mark. I don't know if the population changes that. There is not enough in the article about him or his military service to figure out if GNG is met.--Mpen320 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete completely unsourced, could possibly even be speedied if he were still alive. The other mayors linked above look marginal at best in terms of notability. As of now, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 07:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, he's pretty clearly notable as a former mayor of a city of 200,000 people but obviously in terrible shape. Ping me if it's kept and I'll work myself on expanding it into a respectable article. Kingofthedead (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
There are no automatic notability freebies for mayors just because the city happens to have surpassed an arbitrary population size — a mayor's notability is still contingent entirely on the depth and quality of the sources that can actually be shown to support a substantive article, regardless of whether they were mayor of a city of 200K or a village of 10. So if you want it saved, you should expand it into a respectable article now so that it can get kept, rather than waiting until after the discussion is over before you even start to do anything. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking at the article now, I don't think it's close to enough. SportingFlyer T·C 20:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The article has been greatly improved, and should survive the AfD per WP:POLOUTCOMES as a Mayor of a regionally-significant city. KidAd 18:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

List of people from the Eastern Cape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN - not notable as a group DannyS712 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:LISTPURP as a standard index of notable people and per WP:CLN as a complement to Category:People from the Eastern Cape. People by political subdivision is a completely standard way of indexing them by lists or categories. LISTN is not helpful or relevant here. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    If WP:LISTN isn't relevant, what is the correct notability guideline to apply? DannyS712 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    LISTN itself expresses the limit of its scope, and notes it is "one accepted reason" (i.e., sufficient but not necessary). It depends on what the list is classifying, and WP:CSC is often cited on that point. For a list like this, we'd expect the place to be notable as well as each individual person listed, but no further notability requirement makes sense; it really is parallel to the category because it's classifying the exact same entries by the same facts. postdlf (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There will be such a massive list of people from the Eastern Cape that would make both the list (and category) unwieldy. Unless it can be split into more finite geographical areas. Ajf773 (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
    • ”We may have to split it eventually” is not a deletion argument. Your comment also shows you haven’t even bothered to look at the category to see how many articles and subcategories there are. This is no different than listing U.S. people by state. Such lists can always be subdivided into smaller areas, or by subject’s occupation. postdlf (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus appears to be building that the list is notable but additional input would be useful. Does it meet WP:LISTPURP?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 15:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz 14:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Greater_Portugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simple reason: There has never been a movement, even less a single entity other than fringe groups claiming this kind of "Greater Portugal". There are no scientific, historic or other articles talking about this; no historic antecedent, and it's not even an ideology amongst people both sides of the border. It's clearly just a project made by a small number of people trying to act as if this has ever existed, to push some random agenda. --HolonZeias (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • leaning delete This is way out of my fields of expertise, but the fact that the only name attached to it is an Englishman whose quoted words do not support the thesis in the least is a poor sign. One would think there would be Portuguese exponents who were known for their espousal of the notion. Mangoe (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • delete A search for Portugal Maior returns no results, thus failing WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. The main source cited is not talking about the same concept described in this article. The cited source, George Young's Portugal Old and Young, states, "The princes of Portugal were no longer to have only one temptation to resist, the old temptation of looking on Portugal as a point de départ for an Empire over the Iberian peninsula, they were also to have to resist the new temptation of treating Portugal as the port of entry to Europe of an Empire in the South American continent. ... In other words, the foundations of a Portuguese Republic were laid when Vasco da Gama made the Monarchy an autocracy by pouring into its pockets the wealth of the Indies, and when the Portuguese viceroys founded the greater Portugal overseas." In other words, the "Greater Portugal" that Young was talking about was the Portuguese colonial empire that included Brazil -- not the incorporation of northwestern Spain. The only other source cited is a book about English history, J.R. Seeley's The Expansion of England, which uses the phrase "Greater Portugal" only incidentally without specifically defining it. Also, despite this article portraying "Greater Portugal" as a current proposal, neither cited source is less than 100 years old. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, but the article seems to be about two things: Greater Portugal and Portugalicia. It does not seem that Greater Portugal is notable, but Portugalicia (Portugaliza) is definitely notable and is definitely a real thing. The article should be renamed and reworded so that Portugalcia, which one can easily find sources for, is the main focus. Greater Portugal should redirect to the Portugalicia article. // Lollipoplollipoplollipop :: talk 13:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Neither of them exist in Portuguese culture or politics, the Portuguese "Portugaliza" article was made alongside the English version at the same time, by the same people, with the same references which aren't about the subject in the first place. The only place where Portugaliza seems to be a popular term or concept is among Alternate History communities, or DeviantArt. --HolonZeias (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep The issue here is that the wording does not exist in itself in Portuguese language, "Portugal Maior" it's actually gramatically wrong, the Portugaliza name although known in the Internet is not used either, as a potential unification of both Portugal and Galiza would just be named Portugal and had an autonomous region of Galiza as well. This is actually my field of expertise, and even though there is no general consensus for a name, the fact is the unification with Galiza, the return of Olivença and annexation of small Portuguese/Galician speaking enclaves along the eastern border as well as the reintegration of Cape Verde, São Tomé e Principe and even Timor and Cabinda is an idea in Portuguese society. Even though it's not well known it does exist, some focus more on the Iberian territories, some focus more on the out of Europe areas, some only care about one specific territory, but all combined generate this idea of all Portuguese people under the same country. (Check Nova Portugalidade). As for the name of the page, I believe it is just an english expression used for a lot of different countries and that in the end makes some sense, so I would keep it. Gomes89 (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Gomes89: and thank you for your advice. Do you have any reliable source to back those claims ? Regards, Comte0 (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Reza Parastesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E. The only reason anyone knows his name is because he "looks" like Lionel Messi. There is 0 meaningful coverage of this person. Doesn't meet any n criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: but he using from that and sometimes abusing also must be on Knowledge (XXG) because too many news covered him and he is notable
That isn't how wikipedia works. We're not here to right great wrongs and what you've added is a blp violation. Praxidicae (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Praxidicae of course not, but this article have rich sources like The Guardian and other realizable sources and must be an article about him on Knowledge (XXG) and not important what he do in his life but must be writing with adding sources, also he is famous enough and also have notability for Knowledge (XXG). Aflantwo (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Aflantwo
@Aflantwo, done so & it appears he doesn’t satisfy our general notability criteria. Celestina007 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz 14:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Muhammad Ajmal Raza Qadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As part of new page patrolling, while reviewing this article, I read sources available, searched for more, sadly nothing helps the subject to meet GNG. I added speedy deletion tag, and re-thought, ended with draftifying it. The creator has again moved it to mainspace and added few more sources. Hardly does it meet notability guidelines. Aaqib Anjum Aafī () 14:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī () 14:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī () 11:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete Clearly fails WP:NBIO. Gotitbro (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep clearly meeting Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines
  • 1st reference

  • comment
  • Here notability is established since it is not passing a mention

Leading religious scholar Muhammad Ajmal Raza Qadri has said that in order to bring the society in line with the true teachings of Islam and make Pakistan an ideal Islamic welfare state, it is necessary to practice self-accountability in fulfilling one's duties and responsibilities. Let it be Speaking as a guest speaker in a special lecture under the auspices of Agriculture University Faisalabad Senior Tutor's Office, Sahibzada Muhammad Ajmal Raza Qadri said that we have to find a lasting solution to our problems by taking guidance from Qur'an and Sunnah. There will also be success in the Hereafter. He said that the blessed life of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) is a beacon for us in all respects which provides us guidance in every matter. He said that if we make the implementation of the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah and reliance on it our motto, then there is no reason for the greed for concentration of wealth and power to disappear from our lives. He urged the participants to make respect for their parents as well as their teachers their motto and to make it a habit to share facilities among the people so that deprivation from the society could be eradicated. Syed Afzal Hussain Shah and Senior Tutor Dr Athar Javed Khan also addressed the lecture

here I am using Google translate for the wikipidians unaware of Urdu

your comment:

  • 2nd reference

Here although there is a small mention but many photograph of Qadri are there so notability is established

  • 3rd reference

Preacher from ARY Qtv

  • Also he is a host of Raah e Amal show on ARY Qtv passes Knowledge (XXG) 's notability as entertainer

https://videos.aryqtv.tv/raah-e-amal-peer-ajmal-raza-qadri-5th-june-2020-ary-qtv/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faster than fairies (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  • reference
  • clearly passing mention from Jung against the stated content

translated content Muhammad Ajmal Raza Qadri is the sajjada Nasheen of Ghakkar Sharif notability not mentioned but required for the support of contents

translated content

Gujranwala (Special Representative) Allama Pir Ajmal Raza Qadri, Founder of Tehreek-e-Islah-e-Samaj, said that the religion of Islam always preaches patience. He said that Islam teaches patience, forbearance and perseverance. Therefore, all of us Muslims should show patience in all the trials and tribulations that come upon us. He is with you and rewards you with the best rewards and only the patient will enter Paradise https://www.nawaiwaqt.com.pk/07-Jul-2019/1036725

clearly not just passing a mention hence notability is established

  • reference from Daily Dunya translated content from Google

Gujranwala (News Reporter) Allama Pir Muhammad Ajmal Raza Qadri, Founder of Tehreek-e-Islah-e-Samaj-e-Pakistan, has said that Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Fazil Barelvi, Jalil-ul-Qadr, was a scholar in action and a true lover of the Prophet. Addressing the two-day conference of the annual Urs of Hazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Qadri Rizvi, he said that Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Fazil Barelvi had adapted the heartbeat of millions of Muslims in India to the faith-building requirements of Hub Rasool. He resolutely opposed every conspiracy of the Jews and Christians against Islam.


here not clearly passing mention hence notability is truly established

  • Another reference from Jung

translated content by Google

Muhammad Ajmal Raza Qadri said that the entire life of Pir Tariqat was in accordance with the Sunnah of the Prophet. He followed the example of Hazrat Siddiq Akbar and Mujaddid al-Fathani. Today we are far behind in our role as the Muhammadan Ummah. The responsibility of reforming the Ummah lies in true love for these monasteries and following in their footsteps. Walking step by step, he raised the word of truth before the tyrant rulers of the time. At one of the annual Urs congration, he urged people to be connected with the present Sufi orders and their shuyukhs mentioning it as their responsibility

  • Today every news Channel Pakistan

detailed coverage

Religious Scholar Muhammad Ajmal Raza Qadri has said that in order to bring the society in line with the true teachings of Islam and make Pakistan an ideal Islamic welfare state, it is necessary to practice self-accountability in fulfilling one's duties and responsibilities. ۔

Speaking as a guest speaker in a special lecture under the auspices of Agriculture University Faisalabad Senior Tutor's Office, Sahibzada Muhammad Ajmal Raza Qadri said that we have to find a lasting solution to our problems by taking guidance from Qur'an and Sunnah. There will also be success in the Hereafter. He said that the blessed life of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) is a beacon for us in all respects which provides us guidance in every matter.

Here I have used Google translate to make understand the user who do not understand urdu language Faster than fairies (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Faster than fairies: You haven't mentioned what guidelines, nor how they are being met with the above. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 20:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@TheDragonFire300:
Notability is established because Qadri is having an in-depth coverage in Pakistani Mainstream media
The notable Pakistani newspaper includes Nawaiwaqt,Daily Jasarat, Daily Jung,Daily Dunya etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faster than fairies (talk • contribs) 21:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Faster than fairies: You're just repeating the same flawed arguments you made above. I'm not able to read all the citations you're provided, but the only one I found only mentioned him in passing; he's not even the subject of the citation! And your other sources don't look promising either. That fails WP:GNG. By no means is this coverage significant, and therefore the subject is (contrary to what you've mentioned) non-notable. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, just because the subject is a host on a talk show doesn't make him notable. As an example, note 97.3 FM (Brisbane) and its lack of articles about hosts. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

.Note to reviewing admin Here all the editor who had voted it delete just voted it delete without explaining the sources mentioned,so I am examining each of the sources

  • significantGreen tickY
  • secondaryGreen tickY
  • reliableGreen tickY
  • independentGreen tickY
  • PassGreen tickY


  • 2 Ntu.edu.pak
  • significant Orange tickY
  • secondaryGreen tickY
  • reliableGreen tickY
  • independentGreen tickY
  • Pass Orange tickY


  • 3 today every news
  • significantGreen tickY
  • secondaryGreen tickY
  • reliableGreen tickY
  • independentGreen tickY
  • PassGreen tickY


  • 4*qtv*
  • significant Green tickY
  • secondaryOrange tickY
  • reliableOrange tickY
  • independentOrange tickY
  • Pass Orange tickY


  • 5* news alert and
  • significant Green tickY
  • secondaryGreen tickY
  • reliableGreen tickY
  • independentGreen tickY
  • Pass Green tickY


  • 6*Microsoft News
  • significant Red XN
  • secondaryGreen tickY
  • reliableGreen tickY
  • independentGreen tickY
  • Pass Red XN



  • significant Red XN
  • secondaryGreen tickY
  • reliableGreen tickY
  • independentGreen tickY
  • Pass Red XN


  • significant Green tickY
  • secondaryGreen tickY
  • reliableGreen tickY
  • independentGreen tickY
  • Pass Green tickY


  • significant Green tickY
  • secondaryGreen tickY
  • reliableGreen tickY
  • independentGreen tickY
  • Pass Green tickY


  • significantGreen tickY
  • secondaryGreen tickY
  • reliableGreen tickY
  • independentGreen tickY
  • PassGreen tickY



  • significant Green tickY
  • secondaryGreen tickY
  • reliableGreen tickY
  • independentGreen tickY
  • Pass Green tickY

Total Qualifying sources 7Green tickY +2Orange tickY So there are multiple qualifying sources to establish it's notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faster than fairies (talk • contribs) 13:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)



  • Comment I am presenting analysis to available sources on article, to response the Keep argument as it comes from someone who calls us "ignorant". Here I go.
Link Mention Source Comment
Says that religious scholar Ajmal Raza Qadri said it is necessary to follow the model of Prophet of Islam to Islamisize the society and Pakistan. University of Agriculture Faisalabad (UAF) Reliable and secondary but Routine coverage of a event that took place in the Uniersity.
Qadri was invited to speak again to motivate volunteers of Health Care and Blood Donation Society. National Textile University Reliable, secondary but routine coverage of a event.
Few lectures videos of Qadri there ARY Qtv Primary, doesn't help either way to establish notability
Passing just name MSN Fails GNG.
Qadri's lecture at some Mosque in Mecca Colony at Meelad program News Alert Fails GNG. Millions Muslim scholars speak to such programs.
Opinion of Qadri saying Islam always advises to be patient Nawaiwaqt May help as a reliable source and as an inline citation.It'll need article first to pass GNG. It also says he's founded some "Tehreek Islah-e-Muashra" and doesn't specify anything about this organization.
Passing mention only name Daily Jang Fails to address GNG.
link to a video lecture at associated channel ARY Qtv I will call it "primary" per Ref3 comment.
Opinion of Qadri about Ahmad Raza Khan Daily Dunya Reliable but doesn't introduce us to anything significant about Qadri. It quotes same as Nawaiwaqt that "he's founded some "Tehreek Islah-e-Muashra" and doesn't specify anything about this organization."
Opinion about Hamid Ali Khan Daily Jang Reliable but doesn't introduce us to significant coverage about Qadri. It says, he attended a urs program attended by others as well where he said that "Hamid Ali Khan" was so and so.
Qadri spoke in an event that love for Prophet is necessary part of Islamic belief. Daily Jasarat Routine coverage and passing mentions. Doesn't help GNG

-- Regards - Aaqib Anjum Aafī () 15:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "University of Agriculture Faisalabad (UAF)". www.uaf.edu.pk. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
  2. "Motivational Lecture by Islamic scholar Peer Muhammad Ajmal Raza Qadri| NTU". ntu.edu.pk. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
  3. ^ "فرائض اور ذمہ داریوں کی ادائیگی میں خود احتسابی کو رواج دیا جائے ، اجمل رضا قادری". Today Every News. 2019-03-06. Retrieved 2020-06-04.
  4. "Chughal Khor | Bugz Aur Keena Parwar | Islamic Information | Peer Ajmal Raza Qadri | ARY Qtv". Videos ARY QTV. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
  5. "ڈربی میں بین الاقوامی ختم نبوتﷺ سنی کانفرنس23دسمبر کو ہوگی". jang.com.pk. Retrieved 2020-06-04.
  6. "امام احمد رضا خان سچےعاشقِ رسول ہے".
  7. ^ "پیر طریقتؒ کی زندگی سنت رسول کے عین مطابق تھی:پیر اجمل قادری". Jang. 2019-10-18. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  8. رپورٹر, اسٹاف (2019-03-04). "عشق رسول ﷺ ہر مسلمان کے ایمان کا حصہ ہے، مفتی اجمل رضا قادری". Jasarat News Urdu. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  9. "Motivational Lecture by Islamic scholar Peer Muhammad Ajmal Raza Qadri| NTU". ntu.edu.pk. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
  10. "Chughal Khor | Bugz Aur Keena Parwar | Islamic Information | Peer Ajmal Raza Qadri | ARY Qtv". Videos ARY QTV. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
  11. Akbar, Ali (2016-12-20). "علامہ پیر اجمل رضا قادری کا جامع مسجد اقصیٰ مکہ کالونی میں منعقدہ محفل میلاد مصطفیؐ سے خطاب". NewsAlert.com.pk. Retrieved 2020-06-04.
  12. "रमजान में ऑन लाइन तकरीर व नात सुनने का बढ़ा क्रेज". www.msn.com. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
  13. نیوز, جسارت (2019-03-04). "جامع مسجد امام اعظم ابو حنیفہ گلشن اقبال میں منعقدہ شان رسالت کانفرنس میں مفتی محمد اجمل رضا قادری و دیگر خطاب کر رہے ہیں". Jasarat News Urdu. Retrieved 2020-06-11.
  14. "اسلام ہمیشہ صبر کی تلقین کرتا ہے: پیر اجمل رضا". Nawaiwaqt (in Urdu). 2019-07-07. Retrieved 2020-06-11.
  15. "Roznama Dunya: روزنامہ دنیا :- شہر کی دنیا:-امام احمد رضا خاں فاضل بریلویؒ سچے عاشق رسول تھے :پیر اجمل رضا قادری". Roznama Dunya: روزنامہ دنیا :-. Retrieved 2020-06-11.
  16. "پیر طریقتؒ کی زندگی سنت رسول کے عین مطابق تھی:پیر اجمل قادری". Jang. 2019-10-18. Retrieved 2020-06-11.
  17. رپورٹر, اسٹاف (2019-03-04). "عشق رسول ﷺ ہر مسلمان کے ایمان کا حصہ ہے، مفتی اجمل رضا قادری". Jasarat News Urdu. Retrieved 2020-06-11.
  18. http://www.uaf.edu.pk/EventDetails.aspx?eventnum=952
  19. http://ntu.edu.pk/news-details.php?id=2514
  20. https://videos.aryqtv.tv/tag/peer-ajmal-raza-qadri/
  21. https://www.msn.com/hi-in/news/bihar-jharkhand/%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8-%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%82-%E0%A4%91%E0%A4%A8-%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%87%E0%A4%A8-%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%B0-%E0%A4%B5-%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4-%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%87-%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE-%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%A2%E0%A4%BC%E0%A4%BE-%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%9C/ar-BB13kt1X
  22. https://www.newsalert.com.pk/?p=72933
  23. https://www.nawaiwaqt.com.pk/07-Jul-2019/1036725
  24. https://jang.com.pk/news/588106
  25. https://videos.aryqtv.tv/raah-e-amal-peer-ajmal-raza-qadri-5th-june-2020-ary-qtv/
  26. https://dunya.com.pk/index.php/city/gujranwala/2019-10-29/1531913
  27. https://jang.com.pk/amp/690791
  28. https://www.jasarat.com/2019/03/05/190305-02-10/

Note:to reviewing admin Here the editor who had afded this article to give weightage of his point of view to mislead the discussion process by Clearly hiding the information from the R.s also repeating some point above already discussed by Faster than fairies. Also one common sense that only notable personality get coverage in media. Also They have published there opinion at the 7th day ,after the publication of creator's note as an attack to dilute the importance of note of the creator.This clearly shows that they want article to be deleted without hearing anyone else opinion . Hope reviewing admin will consider this issue before taking any decision .I will be with the final decision of the admin thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faster than fairies (talk • contribs) 17:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


  • After writing the points beneath, my final verdict would be Delete, but first an important Comment on how to conduct an AfD discussion:
I have gone through the page and cleaned it up, removing anything which is routine news.
In summary, whether he is notable or not boils down to whether the sources that report on him are, "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable and intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (WP:BASIC)
The above does not necessitate that those sources are quoted in the article. It simply necessitates that those sources exist. In other words, whilst I might incline to agree with the ultimate verdict of the majority of the editors above, I fundamentally disagree with the methodology they have employed in reaching that conclusion.
We should not be scrutinising (just) the sources provided in the article - in order to reach a verdict - rather we should actively go out and bring evidence that WP:BASIC does not apply.
Here are my more objective arguments for deleting the article:
  1. A quick search on Google Scholar with his name yields no result. I.e. no scholarly publication mentions him.
  2. A quick search on Google Books does not appear to bring up anything mentioning him or anything which he co-authored etc.
  3. A quick search on Google News does not bring up any news sites that mention him, with the exception of this source (Al-Jazeera news) which mentions, "The sit-in protest played a huge role in making our movement national," says 38-year-old Muhammad Ajmal, a TLP supporter, who switched after voting for the PML-N for years." We cannot confirm if this Muhammad Ajmal is the same individual and it is only a passing mention. WP:BASIC requires, "significant coverage".
All my searches above were in English, switching to Urdu we have the following:
  1. A quick search on Google Scholar again yields no result.
  2. A quick search on Google Books does not bring any book mentioning him or co-authored by him etc.
  3. A quick search on Google News again yields no result.
Our last search above should have turned up something, so I performed a general search google with his name in Urdu, without placing them in quotes.
These are two of the articles I have found:
  1. https://www.nawaiwaqt.com.pk/19-Dec-2017/730611
  2. https://urdu.shafaqna.com/?lang=UR&cou=PK&id=1764458
There may be more, but I didn't go too far. Both articles are in Urdu and so I cannot comment on whether they offer "significant coverage" on him. However I would hazard a guess that he is not the main mention in the articles, based off of the discussions above.
At this point, I decided to try a tactic of searching for him indirectly, so I did a google search of Ghakkar Sharif Dargah. It did not seem to turn up any results. I advise someone double checks by doing the search in Urdu. I also did a search of "Tehreek-e-Islah-e-Samaj" and it did not turn up anything notable. Again someone should repeat these searches in Urdu.
Now, based upon all the above, I would state my conclusions as the following:
  1. It is difficult to find any information on him.
  2. What information we do find are not direct mentions.
  3. Even though I used Google above, my normal Search Engine, DuckDuckGo, does not turn up any notable results either.
  4. All that can be found on him are his YouTube videos.
  5. Apparently, the sources in the article show that he appears on a notable Pakistani TV show... But I am not sure that this alone qualifies him, as WP:BASIC requires "multiple published secondary sources".
  6. I do not speak nor can read Urdu so it is likely I am inneffective in locating/verifying information on him - maybe they use a different search engine in Pakistan?
  7. As an individual he does appear to be too notable - he looks after a shrine (that seems to not be notable) and has formed some organisation (that is not mentioned anywhere in English). He is part of the Barelvi movement but that movement is broad and likely has hundreds and thousands of Pirs of which he is one.
  8. The one thing that would establish notability is his YouTube channel, but this was formed last year, does not have a subscriber count and does not meet WP:BASIC's guidelines of "secondary" sources.
In summary as, after searching, he does not qualify WP:BASIC, he should not have a Knowledge (XXG) page. So the page should be deleted.
I am however very unimpressed by the multiple editors above who did the classical, "make up your own mind" and then examined the sources in the article. They should have put their petty squables with the editor above aside, and objectively searched for sources for the article. Instead they concluded first, then laughed off the websites quoted in the article. This sets a terrible precedence for how an AfD discussion should be conducted. It shocks me and I seriously hope that this is not routine on AfD discussions.
At the top of an AfD, you always have "find sources" and then links to Google books, news etc. are given. They are there to be used, not ignored.
So the article should be deleted but the editors above should reflect on how to properly conduct an AfD discussion. I apologise for the harsh manner in which I have converyed some of my points and I hope we can have more constructive AfD discussions in the future. ParthikS8 (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with having citations in the article that are routine news. They just do not establish notability.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@Toddy1:Off-topic discussion that has nothing to do with deleting the article (I just mentioned it above to introduce myself), neverless:

Knowledge (XXG) articles are not... News reports. Knowledge (XXG) considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Knowledge (XXG) is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Knowledge (XXG) may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews, though that is not a particularly active project.

The citations are fine, I removed the content that is routine news, as per the above. Please stay on topic. ParthikS8 (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Irakli Bagrationi (born 1982) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails general notability guideline Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Cool zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-PROD'd by an IP. PROD rationale was: Self-described neologism. Only one of the three refs refers to it. Way WP:TOOSOON to see if this will actually enter the common language and not just be a thing a guy said on Twitter one time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Some kind of merge might be the long term solution, but there is a clear consensus to keep at this time. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Abujh Mon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced, un-notable WP:NFILM and WP:GNG fail. dibbydib or snoop 02:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. dibbydib or snoop 02:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. dibbydib or snoop 02:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - despite the present poor state of the article, even a superficial preliminary google search suggests that this is a notable Bangladeshi film. (There are more hits under the spelling variations Obujh Mon and Abuj Mon). Most results are obvs going to be in Bengali. Time is against me but I'll have a go at adding some refs when I can.Ingratis (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Before they were globally locked for long term abuse, the creator flooded Knowledge (XXG) with articles on topics of dubious notability "on a shocking scale". We at WikiProject Bangladesh are still cleaning up the mess, a time-consuming process because every once in a while something they created is notable. and are other evidence of notability, stating that the film was screened in at least two festivals many years after initial release. And sources often include the name in lists of Razzak's most successful films. There is precious little verifiable information, however, in English or Bengali, with which to write a complete article. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Bangladeshi films of 1972, as an alternative to deletion, and considering WP:WHYN's advice: "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Willing to reconsider if anyone can come up with substantially greater verifiable information than "Obujh Mon is a 1972 Bangladeshi film starring Shabana and Razzak". --Worldbruce (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment English translation is wrong in the article... it's Stubborn Heart...struggling to find suitable RS....possibly redirect to Chitra Sinha? --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 13:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly a notable film in its period and easily sourced - some examples "Most commercially successful ones were Abujh Mon (1972) by Kazi Zahir", "... Kazi Zahir's Abujh Mon (The Stubborn Heart) about a golden-hearted Muslim doctor who cannot marry the Hindu girl he loves and later finds her married to his best friend.", "Of the post-liberation productions, Abujh Mon directed by Kazi Zahir was decidedly the best. Based on a Muslim boy's love for a Hindu girl, the film showed the ultimate sacrifice the former had to make for the latter. Shabana and Razaak acquitted themselves well in the respective roles." "is among the seven Bangladesh films selected for exhibition under the Bangladesh Film Festival which will tour Bombay, Calcutta, Shillong, Bhubaneswar, Ranchi and other places. The other entries in the festival are Lalon Fakir, Abujh Mon, ...", "Of the other movies of the 1970s, the titles which must be mentioned are Abujh Man (Tender Mind),..." --Soman (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz 14:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Abryanz Style and Fashion Awards (ASFAs) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an award presented and named after a fashion commentator, for the apparent purpose of promoting himself. All sources are promotional, either for the person receiving the award, or for the precentor. The guardian ref is their local ed, not the international paper. See adjacent AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the article doesn't seem to be written in promotional language. Secondly the article is not about the person, I think the entry of the person himself should be considered for deletion. Articles like Warner Bros still exist. User:KembabaziJ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment While I do beleive notability here is only marginal and that this award could be folded into the article on the person, I disagree with the broad characterization of the sources. New Vision is the state media site of Uganda, and The Citizen is Tanzania's largest English daily. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 13:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep The fashion award article p±asses notability. It should however not be confused for a Biography. The sources like The Citizen (Kenya), New Vision (Uganda) are good. Lj Drop (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" arguments consists only of a reference to WP:NOLYMPICS, a guideline according to which "athletes from any sport are presumed notable" for participating in the Olympics. But they do not recognize that this guideline, like other topic-specific notability guidelines, only establish a rebuttable presumption of notability. The "delete" side makes persuasive arguments that there are no sources about these people except for their Olympic statistics, which the "keep" side doesn't address. Sandstein 19:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Franzen (cyclist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yes, he competed at the Olympics, which indicates that he probably meets WP:NSPORTS. However, cases like this are the exception to that rule. He is one of more than 50 (!) French cyclists to compete in that one event alone, so not really (or at least not necessary) one of the very best of his own country. We only have a surname, no indication of anything else, which after 120 years and quite a few people researching Olympic athletes seems to indicate that nothing more is available about him (usually we have at least a first name, and a date or year of birth, which allows some further research). Even if we do find a "Franzen" in old newspapers, there would be no way of knowing if it is the same man unless it would explicitly include his Olympic participation. Official sources know nothing further. Even for his one participation, all we know if the event and heat he participated in: we don't know his eventual position, his time, ... nothing at all. Fram (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Also nominated for the exact same reason (no info, no first name or at most an initial, no identifying information or actual significant information available or possible to find) are the following:

They all participated in the same event at the same Olympics (an event for which there are also still 13 redlinks with the exact same characteristics)... Fram (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't understand why these articles are being deleted. There is no "exception" meaning that Olympic athletes with little to no personal information don't deserve to have articles. All of the above mentioned competed in the 1900 Summer Olympics, and per WP:NOLYMPICS, that makes them notable. Lettler 13:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lettler 14:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
No, it's a common misunderstanding. NOLYMPICS means that they are presumed notable: the top of the page makes this more clear, with things like "These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion", " occasional exceptions may apply" etcetera. The reason for this SNG is given at the top of the page, in the nutshell, where the second part is essential here: "and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." So, they are presumed notable because they are likely to have received coverage: but in the cases nominated here (and presumably similar other ones), it is likely that this "presumed" coverage doesn't actually exist, seeing that even the best databases and official sources haven't even been able to find the first names, year of birth, ... of these athletes, which were not some exceptional top of their country representatives, but basically anyone who wanted to participate (which is obviously not the case for most later Olympic games). In short, we have the guideline because most Olympians are notable and that is thus rhe default state: but there are exceptions to that rule, it is not some infallible bright line. There is nothing more to say about any of these athletes, because we don't really know who they were or what they did apart from this one event where they participated but no one bother to even record their position, time, or even their full name Fram (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes WP:NOLYMPICS. Also not an appropriate bundle since these could potentially have very different coverage. Regardless, they're notable. Smartyllama (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete True he might pass a guideline if you don't read the entirety of it. But I agree with Fram. There are no sources to write a biography with, so what info can ever be added to this page? What's the point in having a biography when you can't find important information about the person in the first place? There are no presumed coverage because this person was one of fifty other participants in a race that wasn't even fully tracked. Valeince (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete It is time we applied GNG to all. There is no reason to think this person is notable based on sourcing, and considering what it took to get in the Olympics before WWI, which was not much at all, having one everyone entering is notable standard for all time is just ludicous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - These athletes aren't notable, especially L. Boyer (cyclist), as we don't even know his first name. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 18:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NOLYMPICS and all the arguments always made every time one of these comes up. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep passes WP:NOLY. The claim that "we only have a surname, no indication of anything else, which after 120 years and quite a few people researching Olympic athletes seems to indicate that nothing more is available about him" is erroneous, as per lots of examples on WP, such as Jack Bishop (cyclist), who was at J. H. Bishop until very recently. Lugnuts 17:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Maziar Rajabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable business person, as per usual, the only "coverage" are in paid for publications and the rest are press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Subject meets multiple facets of WP:NPROF, and the spa nominator account should look at notability criteria before saying they are “clearly not met”. (non-admin closure) Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 03:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Alfred Hartemink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is an evident attempt of self-promotion. This page does not adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy.

Hundreds of University professors have long numbers of publications and are editor of a journal. The criteria of notability are clearly not met. There are countless full professors just as good out there, many with more publications/books/prestigious awards. Google scholar gives him an low-average h-index for a professor in this discipline. What if everybody in soil science with more than 5000 citations would have their own wikipedia page? Being editor of a Q2 journal (Geoderma Regional, SCImago classification for soil science journals), does not help in meeting the criteria of notability needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro201649 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC) — Pedro201649 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. It is true that the article appears to have been created by the subject. Thirteen years ago. It has had many other editors since then, most of whom were presumably not motivated by self-promotion. The only other argument made by the nomination is WP:WAX, specifically called out as something to avoid in deletion discussions. The citation record of the subject , with 18 publications having over 100 citations and an h-index of 42, is well above our usual standards for WP:PROF#C1, and he also appears to pass #C3 (as a fellow of a major academic society) and #C8 (as editor-in-chief of a well-established journal). The unsigned spa nominator's claims that these criteria are not met have no actual justification. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Concur with David that this is a clear pass of WP:NPROF C1, based upon ~18 >100 citation papers. I don't see any major BLP issues, and I don't know where an h-index of 42 became low-average. Eddie891 Work 00:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very clear pass of WP:Prof. Does the 3-edit spa nominator have an axe to grind? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC).
  • Speedy keep per David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy/snow keep, per all the comments of others above. The subject clearly passes WP:PROF#C1 based on a combination of high citability, being an elected fellow of a scholarly society and an award from that society. Arguably passes WP:PROF#C3 and WP:PROF#C8 as well. GoogleScholar gives the subject the h-index of 42, which is impressive for a field with moderate citation rates. A 2013 article (of which the subject is actually a co-author) analyzes citation data in soil science and notes that the median GoogleScholar citation index there is 15, with the 75-th quantile being 26. So the nominator's claim that "Google scholar gives him an low-average h-index for a professor in this discipline" is demionstrably false. Nsk92 (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Constantine Bagrationi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The NYT source cited is the only RS I can find that mentions this gent. The usual issue of fake royalty boxes (HRH? Really?) but ultimately not only not notable per WP:GNG but close to unverifiable. Guy (help!) 11:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Support No evidence of notability Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Diamond Creek Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim for notability made. Grahame (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Work 13:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Brooke Monk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article asserts that Ms Monk has "more than 419 million likes and nearly 8 million followers on TikTok". I have done the required due diligence and have found no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent that supports that assertion. I my opinion this article also meet the related the Template:Db-web speedy deletion as "an article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

The result was Make dab. Spartaz 14:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Bingle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Another version has been previously deleted in 2010 for same reason Joseph2302 (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think the previous nomination was about "bingle" as the slang word for a car accident, not the company. I think a Merge and redirect to Suncorp Group (the company that owns the brand) is appropriate in the circumstances. Deus et lex (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate/merge info only: I agree with Joseph2302's comment below that a DAB page would be a better option than merging with a redirect, hence strike through. One of the items on the DAB page could be "Bingle Insurance, part of the Suncorp Group". The sole citation and the relationship to AAI Limited could be included on the Suncorp Group page. Meticulo (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge: This particular brand does not appear to meet WP:NCORP / WP:GNG. Merger may be an option, though the current Suncorp Group article does not mention its AAI Limited subsidiary (previously Australian Alliance Insurance, I think) or its relations with Vero_Insurance or this brand. AAI Limited's various entities and brands are listed on p76 of this financial report. Introducing Bingle onto the overall parent article could be WP:UNDUE but we lack any other redirect target. The present article is providing little more than an "It's a brand" placemarker, and deletion may be the better option, as well as being consistent with the second AfD discussion and decision. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • merge/delete with no redirect--- bingle is well known as an Australian slang term, this is a non-notable company. Would suggest salting this to force any article to first get a review either through DRAFT process or at least by an admin Gnangarra 15:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I would be against salting, purely because I think that Bingle would be a sensible disambiguation page. There are multiple people with surname Bingle (which is how I came across this article in the first place), as well as Bingle Bangle and Bingles, and thus I would suggest delete and then create a new dab page would be best solution. For that reason, I'm also against keeping the redirect, as suggested by Meticulo earlier. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Ok other uses and being a surname makes sens, I must admit I did think of Lara Bingle when I saw this but didnt think of making it dab page. Gnangarra 15:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Emmanuel Agbeko Gamor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable PR guy, lots of coatrack and trivial mentions, nothing in-depth anywhere. Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Nominator's comment struck; indefinitely blocked sockpuppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 08:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep The subject seems notable enough as per the viewpoints of Lorstaking. Abishe (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment the BBC article here isn't necessarily a valid source to substantiate notability as it is closer to an interview of a man on the street than coverage of Gamor because he's notable. Sure, it give him 366 words of coverage, but around 210 of those are covering things he said. The subject is treated as just one example of many of the "young and talented returning to Ghana", not as somebody that stands out from the crowd. The Modern Ghana article doesn't seem to be independent coverage, more of an ad for Gamor's podcast. The author writes "it is my prayer that you are gingered enough to want to check out my friend’s podcast". Eddie891 Work 15:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:V and WP:RSs Lightburst (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Milwaukee Brewers first-round draft picks. (non-admin closure) BEAMALEXANDER!, talk 13:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Clint Coulter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Former minor league player who never made it to the majors. Sources are routine in coverage. Fails relevant notability guidelines. Fiuheat (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 14:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 07:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Shyama Charan Gupta. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Shyam Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this conglomerate is notable. M4DU7 (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 14:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 07:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

That's Shanghai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG, specifically WP:SIGCOV. The two references that had been in the article were both dead links. Only active reference is the link to the company's own website. Geoff | 15:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train 17:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train 17:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 1赵光霞; 宋心蕊, eds. (2013-05-21). "《城市漫步》上海版英文月刊（that's Shanghai）". People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (link)
    2. Kogan, Judy (2002-05-23). "Mark Kitto's 'That's Shanghai' gives readers a dynamic and exciting view of Asia's fastest growing city". Shanghai Star. Archived from the original on 2004-02-21. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
    3. Farrer, James (2019). International Migrants in China's Global City: The New Shanghailanders. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-815-38263-8. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
    4. Ambler, Tim; Witzel, Morgen; Xi, Chao (2017). "Doing Business in China" (4 ed.). London: Routledge. p. 187–188. ISBN 978-1-138-94482-4. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
    5. Qingfen, Ding (2006-06-19). "Expat info". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
    6. Macartney, Jane (2007-05-23). "China saves face with compensation offer for seized magazines". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
    7. "New Straits Times (Malaysia): - Amazing Shanghai". New Straits Times. 2003-01-26. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
    8. McGregor, Richard (2005-05-04). "The perils of publishing in a legal limbo". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
    Sources with quotes
    1. 1赵光霞; 宋心蕊, eds. (2013-05-21). "《城市漫步》上海版英文月刊（that's Shanghai）". People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (link)

      The article notes:

      《城市漫步》上海版英文月刊（that’s Shanghai）是由国务院新闻办公室主管，五洲传播出版社主办并出版发行的期刊。她创刊于2004年，以上海这座国际大都市中的英语阅读群体为读者，内容涵盖艺术文化、流行时尚、旅游、餐饮、技术、商务等众多领域，同时包含了国内外社会名流的专访。其特色栏目如The Buzz， Life ＆ style, Eat & drink等以其客观的视角、深度的分析、丰富的资讯和独特的文化，为上海讲英语的外籍人士和当地爱好者提供了信息及娱乐，从而丰富了他们的生活，在城市资讯类外文期刊中形成了较好的品牌效应，处于行业领先地位。堪称外籍人士沪上生活的实用指南和最佳顾问。

      From Google Translate:

      "City Walk" Shanghai Edition English Monthly (that's Shanghai) is a periodical sponsored by the Press Office of the State Council and sponsored by Wuzhou Communication Press. Founded in 2004, she uses the English reading community in Shanghai, an international metropolis, as a reader. The content covers many fields such as arts and culture, fashion, tourism, catering, technology, business and so on. It also includes exclusive interviews with celebrities at home and abroad. Its characteristic columns such as The Buzz, Life & Style, Eat & Drink, etc. provide information and entertainment for English-speaking foreigners and local lovers in Shanghai with their objective perspective, in-depth analysis, rich information and unique culture As a result, they have enriched their lives, formed a better brand effect in the urban information foreign language journals, and are in a leading position in the industry. It can be called a practical guide and best consultant for foreigners living in Shanghai.

    2. Kogan, Judy (2002-05-23). "Mark Kitto's 'That's Shanghai' gives readers a dynamic and exciting view of Asia's fastest growing city". Shanghai Star. Archived from the original on 2004-02-21. Retrieved 2020-05-25.

      The article notes:

      The 35-year-old Kitto was not intending a career in the publishing business when he settled in Shanghai four years ago. However, he quickly realized the need for a publication like "That's Shanghai". His enormous success has proven him right. Today the magazine, run by a team of 30 staffers, boasts a circulation of 35,000 with a readership composed of 60 per cent Chinese and 40 per cent foreigners.

      "That's Shanghai" enjoys a high level of public recognition, receiving positive feedback from readers as far away as Germany. In addition, Kitto's operation has gained praise from some of the highest departments in the Chinese Government. Officials see the publication as an asset in Shanghai's bid for World Expo 2010. Kitto said he was personally informed by a senior official that his publication was important in promoting Shanghai to the outside world, as well as developing the city's local media.

    3. Farrer, James (2019). International Migrants in China's Global City: The New Shanghailanders. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-815-38263-8. Retrieved 2020-05-25.

      The book notes:

      Kathleen soon became busy with other ventures, including cofounding Shanghai's first English-language magazine, That's Shanghai, with Mark Kitto, a story picked up in Chapter 4.

      The book notes:

      I observed with great interest when in 1999, recently arrived expatriates Mark Kitto, from the UK, and Kathleen Lau, from California, began publishing That's Shanghai, a monthly, English-language guide with listings of the city's restaurants, bars, and everything else.

      ... Kitto writes that the mayor of Shanghai took a collection of That's Shanghai issues to Paris in 2002 when he presented his successful bid for the 2010 World Expo (Kitto 2006; 2005 interview). The impact of That's Shanghai was extraordinary and not only for the expatriate market. The magazine introduced nightlife listings and restaurant reviews at a time when independent restaurants, bars, and clubs were beginning to spread throughout the city.

      Imitators sprang up, and by the mid-2000s, there were at least five locally published listing magazines in English aimed at this market, including market leaders City Weekend, Shanghai Talk, and the Shanghai edition of Time Out. ... Awards from That's Shanghai, City Weekend, and other English magazines became the most important legitimating symbols for restaurants in Shanghai before the arrival of Michelin in 2017. More than anything, however, these magazines were the media through which the expatriate community shared stories and established a collective identity.

      The book notes:

      However, as Kitto discovered, grey-zone media practices tolerated for Chinese businesses were off-limits to foreigners. In 2004, the state-owned company that owned his publishing licenses took over the company, locking him out of his offices (Kitto 2006). The case of That's Shanghai made clear that foreigners could not challenge the state's authority over media organizations in China.

      ...

      One of That's Shanghai's longest serving editors, Australian JFK Miller published a book outlining what he called ... For example, while some Shanghai expatriate magazines features sections devoted to LGBT interests, for many years That's Shanghai was prohibited from explicitly promoting LGBT venues.

    4. Ambler, Tim; Witzel, Morgen; Xi, Chao (2017). "Doing Business in China" (4 ed.). London: Routledge. p. 187–188. ISBN 978-1-138-94482-4. Retrieved 2020-05-25.

      The book notes:

      That's Shanghai

      Kitto's magazine, the equivalent of Time Out, tottered into existence by skirting the rules in 1998, but then was officially banned by the Shanghai News Bureau after just one issue. Nothing in China is quite as it seems. The Bureau had another magazine, the Pictorial, which was doing badly. They wanted to combine the two, under their ownership with Kitto's team doing the work.

      ...

      To maintain the fiction, Kitt was no longer 'editor' but now 'Planning manager' and his team was similarly, on paper, re-assigned. His magazine's name, Ish, was proscribed but, as they needed to get away from the bad reputation of the Bureau's magazine, a new name, that's Shanghai, was put at the top of the front page, with Shanghai Pictorial at the bottom.

      ...

      There would be no kanhao for them in Shanghai; but as that door shut, another opened. Kitto ran that's Shanghai and its sister papers in Beijing and Guangzhou for, in total, seven years. Commercially they were very successful but they had to keep dodging the bullets from branches of party and government, each of which had their own competitive interests. Their agendas were well hidden; Macchiavelli would have been proud of them.

    5. Qingfen, Ding (2006-06-19). "Expat info". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.

      The article notes:

      Demand for the that's publications is enormous, so that's Shanghai started selling copies of the magazines at Lawson convenience stores and CarreFour. The company will sell the magazine at newsstands in the future. That's Beijing will not be sold, however.

      That's Shanghai's circulation is currently 50,000 and is audited by Hong Kong Audit Bureau of Circulations.

    6. Macartney, Jane (2007-05-23). "China saves face with compensation offer for seized magazines". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.

      The article notes:

      A former Welsh Guardsman, metals trader and would-be magazine publisher who fell foul of China's stringent media controls may finally receive compensation for titles lost to a government publishing house.

      The dispute dates back to the late 1990s when Mark Kitto, 40, joined a small English-language magazine in the southern city of Guangzhou. The success of that venture prompted him and his Chinese business partner to try their luck in the bigger, glitzier metropolis of Shanghai. He was taking a risk in a country where foreigners are not allowed to run publishing companies, but the titles -That's Beijing, That's Shanghai and That's Guangzhou -all thrived.

      The first, That's Shanghai, made money from the third edition, with its mix of feature stories on life in China, listings and advertisements for restaurants, bars and clubs. By the time he lost the business in 2004, it was turning over about Pounds 2.5 million a year.

    7. "New Straits Times (Malaysia): - Amazing Shanghai". New Straits Times. 2003-01-26. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.

      The article notes:

      First, pick up That's Shanghai - a free magazine that you can get in most hotels and westernised restaurants. Do this, you'll know more about the city than anybody who lives there.

      It lists about everything that's going on. There's a restaurant guide - 10 pages worth with descriptions, opinions, prices etc. Compiled by an American called Mark Kitto, the magazine is a monthly and is read by every single expat living in Shanghai, and a fair number of locals as well.

      ...

      If you get a copy of That's Shanghai, you'll see new stuff opening up every month. It's not because things are closing down and being replaced - it's because more and more stuff is coming.

    8. McGregor, Richard (2005-05-04). "The perils of publishing in a legal limbo". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.

      The article notes:

      Mr Kitto's magazines, such as That's Shanghai, developed cachet with locals as well as attracting advertising from the booming property and restaurant industries.

      But publishing the magazines was only one part of Mr Kitto's job. Much of his time was spent on politics - that is, trying to secure partnerships with the all-important holders of publishing numbers that would keep his magazines open.

      The most difficult market was Shanghai, which operates tough media controls. Yet it was also the most profitable because of the city's wealth and international population. In one raid, local officials confiscated the magazine's computers. In another, they sat down at the magazine's offices, put their feet up on the desks and demanded that they be brought buckets of Kentucky Fried Chicken for lunch.

      From June 1999, That's Shanghai survived by using a licence number from the Yangzhou government in return for running a page each month about the attractions of the nearby city. Mr Kitto kept control of the business by entering into an "exclusive consultancy arrangement" with Yangzhou, as well as with an advertising agency that was owned by the magazine's Chinese financial controller.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow That's Shanghai to pass Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  • The Shanghai Star noted, "That's Shanghai enjoys a high level of public recognition, receiving positive feedback from readers as far away as Germany."

    A 2019 Routledge book called That's Shanghai "Shanghai's first English-language magazine". It also noted, "The impact of That's Shanghai was extraordinary and not only for the expatriate market. The magazine introduced nightlife listings and restaurant reviews at a time when independent restaurants, bars, and clubs were beginning to spread throughout the city." It further noted, "Awards from That's Shanghai, City Weekend, and other English magazines became the most important legitimating symbols for restaurants in Shanghai before the arrival of Michelin in 2017."

    New Strait Times called That's Shanghai "a free magazine that you can get in most hotels and westernised restaurants".

    Financial Times noted that That's Shanghai "developed cachet with locals as well as attracting advertising from the booming property and restaurant industries".

    Cunard (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 14:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Related discussions: 2018-07 Winston Sterzel ✓ keep, 2017-05 Winston Sterzel no consensus
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 07:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Reveal (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability PERSIA ♠ 20:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. PERSIA ♠ 20:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 06:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sufficient coverage has been shown, given substantial local coverage and at least one source with greater-than-local reach. BD2412 T 01:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Long Beach Rescue Mission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local non-profit. Fails the scale criterion of WP:NONPROFIT Graywalls (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Granados, Christine (1992-08-08). "20 Years of Serving Homeless". Long Beach Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
    2. D'Oro, Rachel (1992-07-12). "Group Denounces Strict Rules at L.B. Homeless Shelter". Long Beach Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
    3. Embry, Robert (1974-06-23). "The Long Beach Rescue Mission A Place of last resort". Independent Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29 – via Newspapers.com.
    4. Woodyard, Chris (1989-04-25). "The Mission That Gave Him Shelter". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
    5. Saltzgaver, Harry (2012-10-08). "Dinner Celebrates 40 Years Of Rescue Mission Service". Long Beach Grunion Gazette. MediaNews. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
    6. Williams, Rhiannon (2016-03-24). "A closer look: The Signal Tribune's Feature series on local nonprofits". Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
    7. Saltzgaver, Harry (2013-01-23). "Lewis Looks To Lead Another Mission". Long Beach Grunion Gazette. MediaNews. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
    8. Stutzman, Stephanie (2019-11-22). "Christmas Kindness: Beach Rescue Mission Aims To Help More This Holiday Season". Long Beach Grunion Gazette. MediaNews. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
    9. Pring, Dawnya (1999-12-19). "Mission Helps Needy Get the Right Stuffers". Long Beach Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
    10. Mellen, Greg (2013-01-04). "Leaving Big Shoes To Fill - Retiring Long Beach Rescue Mission CEO Jim Lewis remembered for compassion Long Beach Rescue Mission chief leaves big shoes to fill". Long Beach Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
    11. Korber, Dorothy (1995-10-21). "Mission Founders Moving On". Long Beach Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
    12. Mellen, Greg (2013-01-03). "Departing Long Beach Rescue Mission chief Jim Lewis leaves big shoes to fill". Long Beach Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
    Sources with quotes
    1. Granados, Christine (1992-08-08). "20 Years of Serving Homeless". Long Beach Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

      The article notes:

      Wayne and Janet Teuerle founded the mission in 1971 with the goal of "serving Christ and the community."

      ....

      So the Teuerles opened the first Rescue Mission in August 1972 at 540 Broadway St. The mission has since expanded tenfold to its current location at 1335 Pacific Ave., which comprises 120 beds and the Lydia House across the street with 35 beds for women and children.

      ...

      Despite the high numbers, the mission has recently been criticized by the Homeless Organization Committee as too restrictive. The shelter imposes curfews, requires mandatory attendance to non-denominational worship services at the shelter and requires treatments for drug and alcohol abusers before meal tickets are renewed.

    2. D'Oro, Rachel (1992-07-12). "Group Denounces Strict Rules at L.B. Homeless Shelter". Long Beach Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

      The article notes:

      A group of homeless people and their advocates marched in front of the Long Beach Rescue Mission Saturday to protest what they called inhumane treatment of the poor.

      Outside the privately funded Christian shelter at 1335 Pacific Ave., more than 40 people, carrying signs, walked the length of the block as rescue mission founder and chief executive officer Wayne Teuerle watched and took photographs. The protesters denounced such rules as a 7:30 p.m. curfew, mandatory attendance at shelter worship services, and requiring treatments for drug and alcohol problems before meal tickets are renewed.

    3. Embry, Robert (1974-06-23). "The Long Beach Rescue Mission A Place of last resort". Independent Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes:

      All these agencies refer the homeless to the Long Beach Rescue Mission. It is the place of last resort.

      But the image of soup lines and a flop house doesn't fit. The Long Beach Rescue Mission is a real joy to behold. A man dying of thirst hopes to find a mudhole over the next sand dune. The mission looms up to the needy like a full-scale technicolor oasis. Its director calls it a "miracle." He may be right.

      ...

      The mission is sandwiched between the Buckhorn Bar and boarded-up storefronts, cater cornered to Pete's Liquors and Spud's Tavern.

      ...

      Chapel services at the mission begin at 7:30 p.m. and end from 8 to 8:30. They are a necessary prelude to food and bunks. The men start forming up on the sidewalk around 7, small clumps of men smoking cigarettes in the classic postures of waiting. ...

    4. Woodyard, Chris (1989-04-25). "The Mission That Gave Him Shelter". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

      The article notes:

      The Rev. Wayne Teuerle had worked in the rescue missions of downtown Los Angeles. He knew their image: smelly places with ragged furniture, gray linoleum and pale green walls.

      He wanted his Long Beach Rescue Mission to look more like a well-maintained apartment building than a shelter for the homeless.

      The result of that ambition is readily apparent at the earth- toned, two-story mission buildings on either side of Pacific Avenue north of Anaheim Street.

      Both the two-story Samaritan House, a men’s 100-bed facility with a chapel and dining hall, and Lydia House, a 33-bed temporary home for women and children, were built specifically as mission buildings. Teuerle said that allowed him to incorporate many of his ideas.

    5. Saltzgaver, Harry (2012-10-08). "Dinner Celebrates 40 Years Of Rescue Mission Service". Long Beach Grunion Gazette. MediaNews. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

      The article notes:

      Forty years ago, a small mission opened its doors at 540 Broadway, serving 27 meals the first day and providing a bed for 16 homeless people.

      Next Thursday, the Long Beach Rescue Mission will celebrate four decades of service to the city’s poorest men, women and children, offering food, shelter and the word of God at its multi-building campus on Pacific Avenue. In that time, the Rescue Mission has helped literally thousands of people, according to executive director Jim Lewis, but the need still remains.

      ...

      Speakers Thursday will include Wayne and Janet Teuerle, who founded the Long Beach Rescue Mission. The Teuerles dedicated a quarter-century to the Rescue Mission, growing it from the small building where the World Trade Center stands today into a complex that offers housing for men (Samaritan House), women and children (Lydia House), a youth center, case management and chapel services in addition to the signature meals.

    6. Williams, Rhiannon (2016-03-24). "A closer look: The Signal Tribune's Feature series on local nonprofits". Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

      The article notes:

      A third local organization that is helping the needy this Easter is the Long Beach Rescue Mission, also located downtown on Pacific Avenue. The mission, founded in 1972 by Wayne and Janet Teuerle, helps counsel and rehabilitate the homeless so that they have the necessary skills and personal tools to be able to succeed in society and lead a healthy lifestyle.

      Long Beach Rescue Mission is unique to Long Beach because it is primarily ran by donations.

      ...

      The mission has two separate houses for men and women. The Lydia House, for women and children, is located across the street from the men’s. Probst said that the separation of the men and women allow people to focus on themselves and better themselves without and worries or distractions.

    7. Saltzgaver, Harry (2013-01-23). "Lewis Looks To Lead Another Mission". Long Beach Grunion Gazette. MediaNews. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

      The article notes:

      The Rescue Mission is a national faith-based nonprofit providing food and shelter to homeless people as well as longer term recovery services. The Long Beach mission opened in 1972 with the Samaritan House for homeless men, and later opened Lydia House as a shelter for women and their children. More recently, they have begun the one-year New Life Program, which provides shelter, recovery programs and job support to those seeking a new direction in life.

      Just weeks after Lewis became the Long Beach mission’s third executive director, Los Angeles County sought bids to operate its Winter Homeless Shelter after the previous operator declined to renew its contract. The shelter had been based in Long Beach, but was controversial, with a battle each year about where it would be located.

      ...

      By 2010, the Long Beach Rescue Mission was in good enough financial shape to purchase a building in north Long Beach. The plan was to use the building as a warehouse most of the year, but also use it as the winter shelter.

    8. Stutzman, Stephanie (2019-11-22). "Christmas Kindness: Beach Rescue Mission Aims To Help More This Holiday Season". Long Beach Grunion Gazette. MediaNews. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
    9. Pring, Dawnya (1999-12-19). "Mission Helps Needy Get the Right Stuffers". Long Beach Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

      The article notes:

      This is the time of year that the Long Beach Rescue Mission tries to offer the city's homeless more than just the usual bed and blanket. Mission workers hope that a few special holiday meals and some small gifts will give their guests hope.

      During the winter months, the mission's 155 beds are filled almost every night. The mission's kitchen serves more than 400 meals a day to Long Beach's needy. Last Christmas Eve, about 800 of the 1,500 holiday meals at the mission went to children.

      ...

      The Long Beach Rescue Mission was founded in 1971 by Wayne and Janet Teuerle, who left the operation in 1995. It began in a storefront with only 40 beds.

    10. Mellen, Greg (2013-01-04). "Leaving Big Shoes To Fill - Retiring Long Beach Rescue Mission CEO Jim Lewis remembered for compassion Long Beach Rescue Mission chief leaves big shoes to fill". Long Beach Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

      The article notes:

      Late community activist Maria Giesey once described Jim Lewis as "a flash of lightning."

      The energetic president and CEO of the Long Beach Rescue Mission is leaving quite a legacy for his successor. In the wake of the announcement of Lewis' departure, he is being remembered by the homeless and low-income communities, along with neighborhood groups, as a man of passion and compassion.

      ...

      The Mission still offers up to 90 days of emergency shelter with case management for about 60, and bridge and transitional living programs.

      The Mission has a total of 136 shelter beds, not including the winter emergency shelter, and Probst said they are usually full.

    11. Korber, Dorothy (1995-10-21). "Mission Founders Moving On". Long Beach Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

      The article notes:

      After anchoring the Long Beach Rescue Mission for nearly a quarter century, Wayne and Janet Teuerle are moving on. They still love the mission, they say, but times have changed and so have the Teuerles.

      ...

      The Teuerles founded the Long Beach Rescue Mission after working at similar facilities in Albuquerque and Los Angeles. They came to Long Beach because the city had no place but the jail for the 50 or so homeless men on the streets each night.

      The Teuerles' first Long Beach mission was a storefront with 40 beds at 540 W. Broadway. Today, the mission offers 155 beds in two facilities at Pacific Avenue and 14th Street downtown. Samaritan House shelters men, and Lydia House provides for women and children.

      In 23 years, they've handed out 2 million meals and 500,000 nights of shelter.

    12. Mellen, Greg (2013-01-03). "Departing Long Beach Rescue Mission chief Jim Lewis leaves big shoes to fill". Long Beach Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

      The article notes:

      Joe Levy, the retired commander of the West Division, also had dealings with Lewis on safety and homeless issues, and said Lewis made a difference in the neighborhood.

      Lewis forged relationships with local community groups and changed the culture around the Rescue Mission, Levy said.

      ...

      In 2003, the Mission had a budget of about $1 million. In its 2011 tax forms, the Mission listed receipts of more than $3.7 million.

      The staff has grown from 12 to 26 people, and engages more than 1,700 volunteers annually.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Long Beach Rescue Mission to pass Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

comment that could be feasible per WP:BRANCH. Graywalls (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • reply you may wish to review WP:AUD requirements in WP:NORG All/most of the above are local coverage which do not sufficiently satisfy the notability requirements for organizations. This comes down to notability similar to John & Son's furniture that is only notable in the local area. The LA Times in 1989 is one that likely meets the notability tacking standard. Now there needs to be multiple sources like this. Graywalls (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:AUD says, "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary."

    Los Angeles Times meets the "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" requirement. It is fine for the other sources to be local sources.

    Cunard (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 06:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Christopher Aylmer, 1st Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass the WP:N test. Bicycle salesman (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 06:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Something Like Strangers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

For a While (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This song does not have independent notability. There is no significant coverage and an article is not justified. JohnmgKing (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing due to overwhelming consensus to Keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Omar Jimenez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Jimenez is notable only for his arrest on May 29, no lasting notability. Delete per WP: BIO1E. Natg 19 (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. – Joe (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

College Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no full-length reviews to satisfy WP:NFILM. GSS  04:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS  04:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS  04:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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) 10:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

List of Diggnation episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced fan cruft article with no apparent notability Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein 05:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. – Joe (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Alain Taravella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no notability apart from the company, which already has an article. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Discounting the blocked sock nom, there's still consensus to delete on lack of sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Miss District of Columbia World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

local beauty pageant, not notable enough for wikipedia. Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 13:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 13:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 13:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

:@User:IZ041 if it can be fixed, then show us some significant, indepth coverage, in reliable sources. WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV needs to be met.MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:MistyGraceWhite Pageantopolis is a reliable secondary source that can be used. If Pageantopolis is not a reliable source then why is it listed as a useful resource on the Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Beauty Pageants page??????? Here are the sources from Pageantopolis that are used in the article. IZ041 (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

:@User:IZ041 in-depth coverage is needed. Just a simple trivial mention does not make a topic pass GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. Alamgir Kabir (1979). Film in Bangladesh. Bangla Academy. p. 60.
  2. National Centre for the Performing Arts (India) (1974). Quarterly Journal. National Centre for the Performing Arts. p. 50.
  3. Cultural News from India. Indian Council for Cultural Relations. 1974. p. 46.
  4. Bangladesh News. Press and Information Division, Bangladesh High Commission. 1973. p. 11.
  5. Rajshahi University. Institute of Bangladesh Studies (2008). The Journal of the Institute of Bangladesh Studies. Institute of Bangladesh Studies, University of Rajshahi. p. 40.
  6. "Miss World USA Pageant". Archived from the original on 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2014-12-19.
  7. The American representatives to Miss World 1978-1994
  • Comment Nom has been blocked as sock, so this can probably be closed as no consensus even if no further comments come in. StarM 18:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a complete lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV of the pageant in independent reliable sources. Of the three sources in the article, two are archived list mentions from a defunct website that appears to have been self-published by a fan of pageants, and the third is a mini-bio in first person tense on the parent pageant's website. I found no other substantial coverage of the pageant itself in a WP:BEFORE search I did, only some local interviews with winners. This local pageant is just not notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG lack of third party verifiable sources.--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a third time due to disruption caused by the sockpuppetry.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Not redirecting to any character list as it has been pointed out that the name is fairly generic and unlikely to simply apply to this one obscure character. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Red Laser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable action figure/comics character. Currently contains no sources, so I wouldn't recommend a merge unless reliable sources are added. A WP:BEFORE turns up nothing in reliable, secondary sources. Delete. Hog Farm (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A redirect is possible but no consensus where and the content appears to already be in potential targets. We do have a clear consensus that we don't have this page. Feel free to put a redirect in as an editorial decision. Spartaz 15:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Caste-based prostitution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article I created was redirected to Prostitution in India. However, any mention of this topic in Prostitution in India was also removed from the same group of users. Varying reasons were given, citing that the term was made up and the content was not supported by the sources but was speculation. This topic is mentioned in multiple third party reliable independent sources, not just the ones cited in the article. It was a start, with enough material available to grow. I did a RFC about it and from my understanding the article can be kept but it should be tried through a AFD avenue so I brought it here. JustBeCool (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Pointy creation which fails WP:OR, WP:GNG. Article provides false impression by misrepresenting sources that only people from certain castes are allowed to engage in prostitution or otherwise prostitution is limited to a very few castes and that is absolutely misleading. Just because some people justify their engagement in prostitution by using their caste, doesn't means that their profession becomes "caste-based".  Capankajsmilyo (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    • The article is clearly about women and young girls being forced into prostitution because of their caste, not them freely choosing to do so and trying to "justify" it. Crossroads 04:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Where you read that? The Guardian makes no mention of being "forced". Most common source here only say they were "forced into" prostitution during British rule. Then source also goes into details that how "Prostitution has emerged as a strategy of survival among several such communities." CodeSlashh (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The individuals in the castes are being forced into prostitution. Crossroads 05:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to closer: This appears to be a procedural nomination, and as such, it does not appear that the nominator wishes to delete the article, since they created it; they should probably be considered a keep vote. Crossroads 04:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per Capankajsmilyo. Nearly whole article is about Banchhada (also referred as Bacchara) and needful content already exists at Banchhada which already covers about their prostitution. CodeSlashh (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The article also describes about Bedias and Pernas. Either way, that would not be a reason to delete but a reason to add information about the other castes traditionally involved with inter-generational prostitution. JustBeCool (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
For Perna, I only see mere claims made by a random NGO, which is not WP:RS. CodeSlashh (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
But still there is nothing which Knowledge (XXG) hasn't already covered on more specific pages. Looking at your sources, this say "Chauhan belongs to the Bacchara caste, a community where women are the primary breadwinners in their families". Banchhada already got details about prostitution.This is about Badi people and already covered at Badi people. This (from page 87) mentions Bacchara, and again Banchhada already got details about prostitution.
Castes are based on identity but originally based on profession. Without a doubt there are tons of castes in which a particular profession is shared by the most members. Why do you need a page about their profession when page about their caste already exist? CodeSlashh (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This article covers the topic as a whole, even if it may or may not be mentioned in the articles of individual castes. For example, the history of the practice has similarities among the different castes and so is covered in this article and measures taken to stem the practice nation wide or region wide could be talked about in the article as well. JustBeCool (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
By cherrypicking statements of random activists. CodeSlashh (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Concerning "cherrypicking statements", it was you who brought up that information already exists in the articles of individual castes so if you are changing your objections to be about sources then use the same sources used in those articles. JustBeCool (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
To the point from user Desmay and D4iNa4 about original research. User CodeSlashh started deleting half the page including sources after this discussion started which makes this discussion misleading but from looking at the history of the page, it is citing reports on this issue by the The Indian Express , Public Radio International , The Quint , Pacific Standard , Al Jazeera , The Kathmandu Post , The New York Times , Los Angeles Times and The Guardian . That NGOs were interviewed as part of their reports is not disqualifying a source. JustBeCool (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
It is more appropriate to give the history of the phenomenon in an article like this since there are similarities among many of the different castes involved and where in India it is more concentrated as explained by the University of Delhi sociologist cited in the Aljazeera article who was researching the phenomenon. JustBeCool (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I just went through the sources myself, and find that the subject is indeed a POVFORK of Banchhada. I am also displeased with the motives and incompetence of the creator who nominates his own creation for deletion in order to justify creation of POVFORK. 2402:3A80:85D:D5E0:8C2E:CA21:45C6:5744 (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)— 2402:3A80:85D:D5E0:8C2E:CA21:45C6:5744 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Castes were historically profession based thus this fails WP:GNG because the coverage is about the history of the particular castes than any "caste-based prostitution" itself. If you are going create articles about professions related to caste then you are simply WP:POVFORKING content. Mohanabhil (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep; clearly meets GNG and is well-sourced. Also it's clearly not just about one caste. Some commenters seem to be missing the point that this is about a type of human-rights violation via coercion; this phenomenon is distinct from any individual caste. Claims about OR and unreliable sources are mere assertions with no evidence. See especially JustBeCool's 06:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC) comment. Crossroads 18:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm quite familiar with NOTADVOCACY, thank you, and thankfully I'm not engaging in it. I explained how it is a distinct topic and where its notability comes from. Crossroads 05:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not understanding the rationale for delete while the rationale for keep is clear and solid. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:NOPAGE and WP:GNG. The above WP:ILIKEIT does not convince that we should be creating articles on castes by targeting the profession when the castes themselves are profession based in first place. Are there any sources which talk about "caste based prostitution" without talking about the particular castes? If not, then this is just a POVFORK. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and WP:OR. The article is misrepresenting sources to spread false notion that prostitution is allowed for certain castes in certain regions, or all members of certain castes are required to become prostitutes. Orientls (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK and WP:NOPAGE. Sources discuss a couple of particular caste members but the title of the subject isn't treated as a separate subject by any of the sources, thus Knowledge (XXG) should avoid treating this as a separate subject as well. Aman Kumar Goel 05:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Caste is not an exclusively South Asian phenomenon, nor is the intersection between caste and sexual exploitation. Clearly the subject is not OR, the simplest of Google searches reveals otherwise; asserting that this as a FORK with reference to an already existing article of a specific caste in India is simply incorrect.--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NOPAGE and WP:GNG. What happened here is that passing mentions of a term have been cherrypicked and an article has been created by adding own synthesis in violation of WP:OR. Contrary to the sources, which talks about castes but don't treat this as a separate subject.  Lorstaking 14:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The topic of the sources is not about a particular caste in general. The topic being reported on in the sources are literally about prostitution based on caste. As subjective as the objection of sources need to "treat this as a separate subject" is, I don't see how the sources can be any clearer what their topic is. JustBeCool (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
If you don't understand what sources say then that is your fault. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to generate a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 01:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree that sources don't treat "caste based prostitution" as an independent subject. Also agree that term is being cherry picked and used in wholly wrong context. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by "independent subject", independent of what? Perhaps you mean the WP:GNG policy that sources must be "independent of the subject", which they are. Perhaps the question is about what the sources treat as the subject. The sources include "How the caste system forces women into prostitution" , "Nat Purwa: Where prostitution is a tradition" "The Indian caste where wives are forced into sex work" , "Caste System Binds Nepalese Prostitutes" , if the sources are not about this subject what other subject are they possibly about? JustBeCool (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Stop WP:BLUDGEONING. We already have Forced prostitution so you are only engaging in WP:OR. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Please explain how specifically this is original research. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 22:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
See WP:IRS. Statements by NGOs are not WP:RS and article about all of these castes already exists. As for the rest, you need to familiarize yourself with WP:ILIKEIT and  WP:RGW. Lorstaking 07:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Neither of those VAGUEWAVEs have anything to do with my rationale for keeping the article. If anything, many of the delete votes can be characterized as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is a trend I've noticed again and again on politically charged AfDs about India-related topics. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 08:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep--per references listed above; this meets GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Nothing proves that this is a notable subject, but merely a term being misused to create an article when the term is only spectrum many other subjects. WP:OR and WP:NOPAGE are absolutely relevant. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete: Per the Duck test. This is a self-professed POV fork, even if actually unintended, and it is clear that dispute resolution should have been followed. As many should know POV-forks is reportedly "undesirable" on Knowledge (XXG). I think there is enough to be included in the original redirect (Prostitution in India), since brothels are included. This would seem to be the same thing as class-based prostitution, unless someone offers proof that "lower castes" would not be equivalent to "lower classes", and apparently related to street prostitution. From what I read it is common practice to wait beside a road for customers. It might be interesting to know what could be considered "politically charged" about prostitution in India? From what I understand it may be one of the oldest "professions" in the world so likely practiced in every country in the world. "Remember the Five pillars"! -- Otr500 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Duck test is for sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. For someone, citing the five pillars by your signature that is plenty of not-good faith you are assuming. There is no evidence of collaborating among users asking to keep this article any more than there is coordination among the talk pages of users asking to delete the article and to be fair they are probably just looking through the user contributions in this dispute and its related disputes. As has been mentioned by others multiple times before concerning POV forks, there is nothing mentioned on other articles about this topic to be forking away from and I am not sure what this has to do specifically with "brothels" which makes it not worth an article. JustBeCool (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Vlad and Nikita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article on a children's Youtube channel has lingered in the NPP queue for a long time, I think because it is a borderline case. The article has been tagged as undisclosed paid. It is a popular Youtube channel, with over 30 million subscribers. The non-social media/database/press release sources in the article are this from Business Insider and this from Thrillist. The coverage in these sources is exceptionally brief - a few sentences in a listicle about "the x most popular Youtube channels". I am not convinced that this satisfies WP:SIGCOV.

There is quite a bit of coverage on Google News, but excluding blogs and press releases, it is all of the same type, lightweight listicles that devote no more than two or three sentences to the subject: . The coverage on this Russian site is more in-depth, but I'm not sure about the reliability of the source; running the site's front page through Google Translate, I get the impression that it's a trashy celeb gossip site that shouldn't be used in BLPs. This from Paper Magazine is the best source I could find and it is still quite insubstantial - half of the 250 word article is about a different Youtube channel.

The question is, is a high subscriber count and some mentions in listicles enough to justify a (possibly paid) BLP on two minors? I am not sure, so I am nominating it here to get consensus. Spicy (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, I would consider it pretty likely that 36.7 Million subscribers and 14.3 Billion views would cause them to pass WP:ENTERTAINER#2, “Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following”. Regardless of that, I think they pass WP:GNG. The article in Papermag provides significant coverage, and there is also this: which I think also provides significant coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, Not sure what makes you think it's paid and don't know what I should (should I?) answer on that. But IMHO all channels in this list definitely pass WP:ENTERTAINER#2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_most-subscribed_YouTube_channels. And in a moment of creation this was the most popular channel without an article. MasterMao (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Not trying to bludgeon the discussion, but I think it might be helpful to expand on my rationale. Having 36 million subscribers satisfies WP:NENT C2, but unlike some other criteria such as NACADEMIC, NENT does not supersede GNG. It is merely an indication that the topic may meet GNG. Most Youtube channels with that number of subscribers probably do meet GNG, but this is a unusual case because the channel publishes banal clickbait videos for preschoolers, and that isn't a topic that is likely to attract serious critical attention or media interest, unlike say, Pewdiepie or Logan Paul, where there are numerous things to say about them. We can see that all reliable sources have to say about this topic is "it's a Youtube channel about two brothers, and they have a lot of followers", which is not enough to sustain an encyclopedic article, IMO. Spicy (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per reasons above. It has some WP:SIGCOV, it's even talked about in this website. Therefore, the article is good enough to pass WP:ENT and WP:GNG. My vote stands. So, don't bother arguing. I won't reply any further. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 07:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Currently, aside from commercial/brand/corporate channels, children/family channels have the most subscribers right now on YouTube. They are enormous and receive hundreds of millions views! Unfortunately, channels that focus on children's play and nursery rhymes are not the subject of newspaper and media coverage. I was looking for coverage of them here and it seems like only a couple have Knowledge (XXG) articles. It is unlikely that there will be in depth interviews with toddlers or their parents so we might be limited to incidental coverage. But I think they are still newsworthy and I'm searching to see if any organization has tried to analyze this phenomenon. These families, which are spread out all over the world, are becoming multi-millionaires overnight and I hope to find some media coverage of this all. It's a recent phenomena. Liz 01:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • KEEP As others have stated they have a large enough fanbase to pass the subject specific guideline for entertainers. Dream Focus 21:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Death, Dungeons and Taxes Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not-notable political party. Two candidates with derisory vote totals between them and no proof of notability before or after elections. Knowledge (XXG) is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties and this article is a threadbare commentary on two failed elections with no evidence of importance, lasting notability, or impact. doktorb words 01:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. doktorb words 01:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb words 01:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. doktorb words 01:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think this party passes GNG. Aside from this: article from the BBC already in the article which provides significant coverage, there is this article:. There are also a couple of sentences devoted to it in this book:, but that is not significant coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. A minor political party that existed for a single election. They fielded two candidates. There are 650 constituencies. The citations only being from BBC election coverage, listicles, and two sentences in a 300 page book is an indication that GNG has not been established.--Mpen320 (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. WP:ORGDEPTH explicitly tells us that a list entry isn't significant coverage and doesn't contribute towards notability. I think it's a stretch to call the passage in the BBC article substantial coverage, too. Fails the WP:GNG and has no lasting impact. Ralbegen (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable party. Unlike the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, which has made a mark on British politics, this party appeared before the election and vanished after it. LefcentrerightDiscuss 13:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. The party did not hang around to establish notability, and anyhow fails GNG despite the limited and brief coverage.JohnmgKing (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - A party which ran two candidates at one elections is not notable. As an aside was the "party" not a promotional stunt for tourist attractions (ie the Edinburgh and York Dungeons)? Dunarc (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Michael J. Carrasquillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claim to fame is as a touring replacement for bands, article has no citations to support notability and consists mainly of lists. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America 06:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Lady Bardales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The one source we have is very tabloidish, centered around rumors and very negative coverage of a photo. This may have passed muster back in 2005 a year before we started developing the concept of notability, it does not now. Other coverage is equally tabloidish. Her actual claim to notability may not be any more questionable than some others we have articles on, but it is not very well sourced and other sources tend to run even more into tabloids than the source we have. Beyond this since Bardales is a living person, we have higher standards on the article than on those of the deceased John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep- She seems well known enough in Peru to have her engagement be reported about. We do need more sources however. Antonio the Lady's Lover Martin (si?) 11:55, May 25, 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 11:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 00:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • leaning delete Based on the information in the article, I would go for outright deletion, as there is no claim to notability other than that now provided by some sourcing. Looking at the English-language sources, there's intimation of a more interesting story which would justify the article, but that story isn't what's in the article, and I do not trust machine translation to get me a better picture here. But without improvement, I can't see keeping this. Mangoe (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, sources do not have to be in English to contribute to notability, the Peruvian sources are reliable, and they cause her to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Tom and Jerry feature films. Presuming that someone will take the time to upgrade the target from a redirect to a proper list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry: Back to Oz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, no significant independent coverage from reliable sources, per WP:NF, deproded without addressing concerns BOVINEBOY2008 11:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Merge to List of Tom and Jerry feature films, and expand that article from a redirect into a full article. Per the comments of Bovine, the Dutch website is not a reliable source, so this does not pass NF. However, there is still one reliable source, and a list of Tom and Jerry movies would easily pass WP:LISTN, so that seems like the best course of action. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Keep, it is rather borderline, but I think this passes NFILM and WP:GNG. There is a review by Common Sense Media here: and also another review here by a Dutch website: , I cannot read Dutch, but putting text into google translate and looking at the website it seems like a reliable source. There is also another review here: but I have doubts about the reliability of that website. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    • It looks like the Dutch website is a blog, meaning the CSM seems to be the only notable review. And WP:NF asks for two or more nationally known critis. BOVINEBOY2008 13:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 11:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 00:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Šípová (Bratislava bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails all notability reqs. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 00:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   04:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   04:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Abibakr As-Sidiq Philanthropic Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable organization without WP:CORPDEPTH & invariably falls short of WP:CORP. Celestina007 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep A major NGO in providing a free scholarship to science students at universities and for charitable work such as building mosques in Nigeria, can seen in the following 1, 2. Mok Joe (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 11:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 00:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Housing and Services, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NORG. WP:NONPROFIT. Area specific provider of supportive housing that was added to Knowledge (XXG) by the organization itself. Graywalls (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

follow-up - coverage in other area article was about a particular hotel being renovated which focuses on the building but not this organization. The organization is in New York and works on New York and evidence of scale of work in national and international scale not found. HSI does not inherit the notability of Hotel Kenmore Hall per WP:INHERITORG. Graywalls (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Roberts, Sam (2009). A Kind of Genius: Herb Sturz and Society's Toughest Problems. New York: PublicAffairs. p. 102–103. ISBN 978-0-7867-2754-4. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
    2. Hatchett, David (1992-09-05). "Homelessness should not mean hopelessness, say housing advocates". New York Amsterdam News. p. 3.
    3. "Nonprofit developer in action". Newsday. 1991-06-01. p. 47.
    4. Hamm, Lisa M. (1997-02-26). "Hotels for transients slowly taking shape as testament to hope". Chicago Tribune. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01 – via Newspapers.com.
    Sources with quotes
    1. Roberts, Sam (2009). A Kind of Genius: Herb Sturz and Society's Toughest Problems. New York: PublicAffairs. p. 102–103. ISBN 978-0-7867-2754-4. Retrieved 2020-06-01.

      The book notes:

      The Cecil Hotel on West 118th Street in Harlem was once the home of the celebrated jazz club Minton's Playhouse. Like many properties in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx, it had been seized by the city in the mid-1970s for long-overdue property taxes. In the mid-1980s, Vera bought the vacant and vandalized ninety-apartment building for $25,000 and formed the Public Service Action Center, to develop the property with $2 million from a private investor, a $300,000 loan from the Harlem Urban Development Corporation and a $1.7 million loan from the City's Department of Housing Preservation and Development for renovations.

      The Public Service Action Center evolved into Housing and Services, Inc., which filled a void for those community-based nonprofit groups that were willing to own and manage housing but did not want to act as developers. Housing and Services identified sites that could be developed without zoning variances, community partners to manage the projects, finances to build or rehabilitate housing, and an operating budget that often depended primarily on the $215-a-month allowance that public assistance has granted single individuals since 1975. Housing and Services also leveraged loans from the city to create specialized housing, for low-income members of the Actors' Fund including retirees, young performers and actors with HIV and frail and poor elderly people. It established a residential health care facility for families with AIDS, the first of its kind in the country eligible for Medicaid funding that offered medical, social service, substance abuse care and child care.

      Overall, Housing and Services was instrumental in the development of more than 2,000 housing units valued at over $200 million. And it helped preserve affordable housing under the subsidized Mitchell-Lama Program, which allowed owners to convert buildings into market-rate cooperatives. In 2005, Housing and Services engineered the transition of a Mitchell-Lama complex in the Soundview section of the Bronx into affordable co-ops where maintenance costs were kept comparable with previous rents. The complex, with 1,865 apartments, was the largest to preserve Mitchell-Lama housing in New York State. In 2008, on Housing and Services's twentieth anniversary, Robert V. Hess, the city's commissioner of homeless services, said: "Thousands of New Yorkers have a better life today in large part thanks to your efforts."

    2. Hatchett, David (1992-09-05). "Homelessness should not mean hopelessness, say housing advocates". New York Amsterdam News. p. 3.

      The article abbreviates "Housing Services Inc." as "HSI". The article notes:

      HSI has helped develop 1,000 housing units serving 3,000 people at 16 different city locations across the city since its inception in 1987.

      'Homes Away From Home' is an HSI project on East 116th Street in Manhattan. The $500,000 development is managed by Youth Action Home Away From Home, a youth-assistance organization in East Harlem.

      ...

      Last May HSI helped the Highbridge-Community Life Center open the Highbridge Woodycrest Center in the Bronx for families affected by the AIDS virus.

      ...

      HSI manages the Cecil Hotel on West 118th Street in Manhattan. The hotel provides housing and services for 115 single homeless men and women housed in single and double rooms. It opened in 1988 and was financed by $4.1 million in federal and private loans and grants.

      The Cecil looks more like a midtown luxury hotel than a homeless shelter. The lobby has a fish tank, plush leather chairs, a television and v.c.r. Each floor has a well-kept dining room and nearly spotless hallways.

    3. "Nonprofit developer in action". Newsday. 1991-06-01. p. 47.

      The article notes:

      ... Housing and Services Inc., a nonprofit developer that works under contract to community organizations. It was started in 1982 as part of the Vera Institute for Criminal Justice.

      ...

      Housing and Services now operates separately from the Vera Institute, with a $37-million development budget and a blue-chip board of directors. In its first nine years, it completed eight projects housing more than 750 people — all on time and on budget, Haaga said. This year alone, another eight projects for 970 people are under way.

    4. Hamm, Lisa M. (1997-02-26). "Hotels for transients slowly taking shape as testament to hope". Chicago Tribune. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes:

      A a year later, a small not-for-profit company called Housing & Services Inc. bought the building. The company was founded in 1986 by lawyer Clairo Haaga to create homes for low-income and homeless people with special needs.

      Although drugs had been cleared out of the Kenmore, HSI found itself saddled with a squalid building with a disastrous infrastructure.

      HSI made cosmetic repairs to make the building livable, and began shifting around the 300 or so people who remained while embarking on a complete overhaul.

      ...

      With a baby grand piano donated by Haaga in the lobby, and a motherly manager named Pearl Poole, the restored Cecil is so appealing that a group of investors plans to revive Minton's Playhouse, a closed jazz club on the ground floor where many of the all-time greats played.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Housing and Services, Inc. to pass Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 00:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Saigon Tourist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable tourist agency Wikieditor600 (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
In the current state, the article is fine for deletion, as the Guiness World records link is basically irrelevant, so there is just one relevant reference. However, I have personally heard about this (state-run) agency, so from personal experience it is notable; but the article in the current state is not good. --- Running 10:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
you can easily google the company in google news, and many (Vietnamese) sources pop up. So I think it is notable. However, I am not going through all them, as they are more important things to do than that. ---- Running
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 00:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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) 10:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Fairmont Bab Al Bahr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing notable about this hotel. Wikieditor600 (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 00:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Emirates Palace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing notable about this hotel. Wikieditor600 (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 00:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

National American Greek Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Knowledge (XXG) is main hit, website is down, can't find any information beyond what is here and appears to be copied from here. (Created by User:NAGCDirector who was blocked for NPOV editing...Naraht (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:57, 5 June 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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑