Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 June	17 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo (2004 film)

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

Non notable film with no independent 3rd party reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb seeks to be comprehensive. Being made is not enough to show notability for our purposes. Nothing at all indicating notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . Academic Challenger (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reel Horror

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

Non notable film with one questionable review. PROD was removed because "Ross Hagen is notable", but notability isn't inherited. Director is notable, but is film? Donaldd23 (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability of a director does not carry over to their movies. Wes Craven and Sean S. Cunningham, who are both much more notable directors than Hagen, have films without their own Wikipedia pages. Reel Horror itself is not any more notable than The Media Madman or Time Wars, to name other Hagen films.--HawthOffHead (talk) 2:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete Except for the sources in the article I failed to find any other mentions about the movie. Fails notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . Academic Challenger (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nate McMurray

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Fails WP:NPOL. Compositionally identical to the 2018 article, except for one section. scope_creep^Talk 23:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Democratic nominee in a safe Republican district is not notable just for running, and the primary has not received much coverage. In the unlikely event that the candidate wins, then the page can be restored. KidAd (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are you serious? He has received far more than normal coverage. There are enough references to meet WP:GNG.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 15:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really notable outside of his campaign. I'm not seeing anything outside of normal campaign coverage. Also, as a not to the closing admin it appears McMurray is canvassing through his campaign's social media. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well anyway, I wrote the article and I have nothing to do with him. But ignore those comments at the top.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice article, yet I have to agree with the comments of KidAd and GPL93. McMurray is not really notable outside of the election and it is unlikely that a Democrat will be elected in a traditionally Republican district. Best, LefcentrerightDiscuss 23:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is it being considered for deletion? The information it contains is accurate. Or is it just that his political opponents don’t want him to have visibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.147.143 (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article on Nate McMurray should NOT be deleted. It is well researched and entirely factual. I am a donor to Wikipedia and respect your independence. Do NOT DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Grass Is Always Greener (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC) — The Grass Is Always Greener (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete he is an unsuccessful candidate for congress. We have decided that the normal level of coverage these people get, even in tight races, is not enough for notability. With extremely rare exceptions we need coverage outside the context of the election and significant amounts of it to show someone notable. We do not have that here.Signed by user:Johnpacklambert. Unusual missed by signature by editor. scope_creep^Talk 12:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsuccessful candidates are generally not notable, he is no exception. SportingFlyer T·C 16:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of whether the election in question is a past one which the subject lost, or a future one whose final results are still pending, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not already won — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one. And the fact that the candidate can show some evidence of campaign coverage does not in and of itself get them over GNG as a special exemption from our normal practice for candidates, because every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, which means every candidate in every election would always get that exemption and the rule itself would literally never apply to anybody at all anymore. So to get a candidate over the notability bar, you need to show one of two things: either (a) he already had preexisting notability for some other reason that would already have gotten him into Wikipedia anyway (e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) he can show such an unusual depth and range of reliable source coverage that you can credibly claim his candidacy as much more special than everybody else's candidacies, for some reason that would pass the ten-year test for enduring significance (i.e. Christine O'Donnell). But neither of those things are on offer here at all. And no, it isn't an ideological bias either, because the same rule applies to all candidates regardless of whether they're Democrats or Republicans, and regardless of whether the incumbent is a Democrat or a Republican. So, no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins, since his notability claim will thus have shifted from "candidate" to "officeholder", but nothing here is a valid reason for him to already have a Wikipedia article today — being a clearinghouse of campaign brochures for current election candidates is not our job. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of this article is about the elections he has run / is running in, as opposed to being about him. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep, he's got solid credentials and it could be expanded significantly. Got lots of media attention as well. Kingofthedead (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Academic Challenger (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whitton, Illinois

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

GNIS stub with no evidence of notability. Historic aerials and topos show there was never more than a handful of buildings here, and there's no sources available to establish notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Roland was born on July 10, 1922, the son of George F. and Laura E. (Beckett) Unangst in Whitton, Illinois" [1]. (from what looks like the findings of fact in a legal case - hard to tell the context because of snippet view) "That the branch of petitioner's railroad running between Aurora, Kane County, and the Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, passes through and serves an unincorporated community in Hanover Township, Jo Daviess County, known as Whitton; that said community contains a population of approximately 40 persons. [2]. Since Whitton was at one time regarded as a community, and as a place at least one person was from, it passes WP:GEOLAND as a (once-)populated place that is/was recognized as a community. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 23:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CactusJack. SportingFlyer T·C 03:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I concur with CactusJack. I found other mentions of the community; [3] and also on a topographic map showing the nearby Hanover Bluff Nature Preserve [4]. It's obvious the place existed as a populated place. Not that these are usable sources for the article, but they do point to the existence of the place sufficient for WP:GEOLAND. It never was much of a place in terms of population, and its unlikely we'll ever get a more thorough article than this, but it certainly did exist and was a populated place. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May have been a tiny community but still counts, meets GEOLAND. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, because of the obituary and case citation indicating a population, cited by Cactus Jack. I'd be interested in knowing whether this existed before the Savanna Army Depot; from the Hanover Bluff topo map (cited by Hammersoft) it appears that Whitton was basically a railroad crossing just outside of the Savanna Army Depot boundary. (Though someone claiming seriously to be "from" there is a good indicator of a real settlement, it wouldn't be appropriate to make "at least one person was from" to be an outright WP:GEOLAND criteria on its own; by that criteria, Griffiths Mobile Home Park IL to the northeast would be notable. A lot of these U.S. names come from the U.S. topographic maps via the Geographic Names Information System tagged as populated places, which doesn't make a distinction between types of settlements, and considered railroad stops to be settlements as well. HomeTownLocator is an example of a "source" that is just an automated page about each GNIS entry. We could find someone "from" the trailer park very quickly in theory, since there are still 9 trailers there.) --Closeapple (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of note; I did try to search census records from the early 1900s, presuming there was population to be reported. I ran into problems with spellings of the name, and conflicts with similarly named places (ex; Wheaton, Illinois). My search was inconclusive. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modèle 1978 helmet

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

Article does not give third-party source and none can be found. Possible failure of general notability guidelines. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As we have articles on pretty much every other helmet ever worn (see Category:Combat helmets), I fail to see why this one should be non-notable. Military equipment of major countries is most certainly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, well I only found hits to other Wikis, so no notable third-party sources. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This helmet is part of an evolution of military protective gear. It was the French Army's standard issue for over 10 years and was the last steel helmet before the introduction of fiber helmets. Unfortunately no book has yet been written on the dialectical evolution of helmets in response to shrapnel and small arms fire. When one is, this helmet will be part of the story, paralleling similar evolution in US military gear, amongst others.Acad Ronin (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you saying it should be kept despite having no source? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it still needs sourcing... Ingratis (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ingratis, I tried looking for one but only found hits to other Wikis. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyw7: - I understand! I was agreeing (clumsily) with your point. Ingratis (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this article is certainly weak source-wise, but the subject is clearly notable, and what is stated in the article is not controversial. Wikipedia has rules for certain reasons, and sticking to the letter of the rule irrespective of their spirit is not constructive. And in any case, unsourced or weakly sourced articles should be marked as such or preferably improved, not deleted. Deletion is for unencyclopedic material. Rama (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rama, if there's not enough sources, perhaps it should be merged to another article. Perhaps a super document for all the hemets. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Modèle 1978 has the same sort of references as many other articles on similar subjects on en:, and exists in three languages. I you think that helmet models do not warrant their own articles except for the most famous, you should start a general conversation on the subject, not single out a specific instance. Rama (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, hundreds of thousands of soldiers have worn this on their head. It has to be notable! Vici Vidi (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vici Vidi, so just because tons of people use it, it has to be notable, even without references? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, If there's a lack of sources, find some! I literally just spent less than 5 minutes looking, and came across these: 1)http://www.nyc-techwriters.com/militaria/french_helmets2.htm 2)http://msgrenot.free.fr/modele_1978.htm 3)https://www.world-war-helmets.com/fiche/https:/www.world-war-helmets.com/fiche.php?q=Casque-Francais-Mle-F1-serie-1 SmartyPants22 (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SmartyPants22, I did and only found hits to other Wiki sites! --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument and some other keep votes also aren't very convincing, the fact is that during this AfD, some editors have added quite a bit of sourcing to the article. The article now cites 3 books, and though I don't have the books and cannot really evaluate the depth of coverage, it seems to me that the subject passes the GNG. PJvanMill (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Barrett

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

Non notable actress, Found this one-bit mention but other than that nothing, Fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of minor parts, not enough major to pass the notability guidelines for actresses. IMDb is not enough to even more towards notability, and the other mentioned source is clearly not in any way even close to being enough on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately, as she only has two known roles on film and television. One of these roles is uncredited, the other an early life of character child role so WP:NACTOR is not passed at this time, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noting that User:Xannir has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snoboy, Fremont, California

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

Yet another GNIS stub with no evidence of notability and no sources to be found. It appears to have been a railroad siding without even a station to its name. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete/redirect If it is part of Fremont, California, it should be covered there in its history. Reywas92^Talk 00:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNIS and topo maps suggest that this was a rail siding, not a community. The claim that this was a "former unincorporated community now annexed to Fremont" is entirely unsourced. –dlthewave ☎ 02:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fremont, California as not meeting notability for solo article. --Xannir (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted above, it's a rail siding [5]. Not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry (Fergie song)

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

Not notable per WP:NSONGS as it did not chart, nor did it receive sufficient coverage independent of the parent album. Additionally the information could be and is largely already sufficiently covered at the album's page. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 22:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 22:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per WP:NSONGS. Sourcing and content mostly in the context of the album, so it’s better to be covered there. Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The song did receive independent coverage in the following sources (i.e. outside of album reviews): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17. I am sure the nominator already knows this, but I want to emphasize the WP:NSONG policy only says chart placement may be a sign of notability. The focus should be kept on whether or not this song has received significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources. Aoba47 (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder Aoba47, I am aware that chart placement isn't a deciding factor necessarily however many of the sources listed above and already in the article speak about the existence of the song or the music video. This coverage could be neatly and succinctly on the album's page. As another indicator why this may not be notable, according to the page views analysis, it receives on average 8 views per day compared to the album which receives an average of 282 views per day. In terms of where people are more likely to be informed about the topic, its likely to be the album page. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 08:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I would slightly push back against the part that the above sources only cover "the existence of the song or the music video", as some do talk about the song's lyrics and sound and provide critical commentary. However, I will leave any further discussion to other editors. Page views are not really relevant to a conversation on notability. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Aoba47's sources are adequate to meet notability under WP:NSONG, so no need or benefit to redirecting or deleting. Rlendog (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Aoba47. With the song's independent coverage indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Smallman

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The Seattle Times article is about the school, not the subject. The other sources are self-generated or dead links. No SIGCOV on Google. Rogermx (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice resume, not a notable biography Reywas92^Talk 23:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the founder of a secondary school is not a sign of notability, except when it later becomes a tertiary institution, and a figure like Karl G. Maeser is bad precedent for this idea anyway, because there have been multiple biographies of Maeser written, so he passes notability guidelines regardless of weather he passes academic notability as a university head.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Not notable per wikipedia guidelines. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTLINKEDIN Lightburst (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trisha Silvers

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 21:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is WP:BIORELATED relevant? She's famous for surviving a natural disaster, her work with a foundation, and for receiving a national award. Being (briefly) married to an athlete doesn't preclude individual notability. pburka (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per everyone who participated in the 2014 discussion. pburka (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: no less notable than when she passed previous AfD: the fact that there's a navbox template for {{Young Australians of the Year}} suggests that it confers notability, and there's ongoing coverage. PamD 11:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the discussion from the 2014 AfD is still valid, she's still notable as Young Australian of the Year and her other work. --Krelnik (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Consensus that she passes WP:NARTIST, despite COI concerns. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Savedge

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NARTIST. Cursory check on Google news returns one trivial mention, and scholar.google.com returns a number of articles with trivial mentions. Nothing significant by the subject. Article was created by a contributor with connection to Richmond Artists Association. Article subject as well as the contributor have both served as the president for RAA. Graywalls (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the collections prove to be verifiable, then she would pass NARTIST on that basis. As the article stands, the citation for these collections is not verifiable. Could check the institutions to see if they have their collections online. Netherzone (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
reply @Netherzone:, for what its worth I queried https://www.vmfa.museum/collections/search-collections/?nav=1&keyword=savedge and got no result. I searched for her name in relation to the organization and she appears as a name in a trivial donor list. Graywalls (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Museums sometimes do not have the money to get all the metadata for the objects they hold into searchable digital form. For example if they pay someone $25 an hour to digitize material, and they have 1000 objects that take two hours each, then that is $50,000. See this source from July 2017. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a source for the VMFA collection, meaning she meets WP:ARTIST. There are also more than a few decent additional sources out there. As Graywalls says, the article was recently edited by a now-blocked COI editor, so it may need cleaning up. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and where else? "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Graywalls (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: Several is two or more: we have the Chrysler Museum and VMFA both sourced in the article. Plus lots of Google books mentions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I once suggested we change that from several to "two or more", but it was pointed out that it was intentionally vague to prevent gaming the system. Anyway, she is in two confirmed collections and therefore meets WP:ARTIST.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree she's been in VMFA's permanent Collection. I see it in Chrysler Museum: https://chrysler.org/chrysler-museum-shakes-up-contemporary-collection/ and https://chrysler.org/exhibition/remix-redux/. Can you enlighten me if this is permanent collection? Graywalls (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: "From ancient art to works from the modern masters, our permanent collection rivals that of any American museum."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NARTIST, art held in permanent collections of multiple galleries/museums, 3 of savedge's photos also in The Polaroid Collection (that doesn't have a wikiarticle but is wikinotable:)), (see here). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
question How do we distinguish a notable gallery from run of the mill and vanity galleries? Graywalls (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls, that's actually fairly straightforward, but any attempts to establish a notability guideline for art galleries that I've been involved in have been thwarted by editors who insist that art galleries are no different from green grocers. If you're really interested, we can talk about how to determine notability by objective measures. I'm just, really, really sure that the community will never accept such a guideline. Vexations (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment so I'm not firmly insisting a position for deletion at this point; however I do challenge the line of argument that appearing in an inventory of liquidation or estate sale of this nature automatically gives a Wikinotable cred to anyone and everyone who appears in an inventory list. This bankruptcy auction was notable, because of some notable contents. I would argue that it would be hinging in inherited notability, which for orgs/companies is explicitly denounced, however, other notability guidelines are silent on. This could merit further discussion elsewhere. Graywalls (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see where you are coming from. All other !keep voters have basically agreed that the two collections (VMFA and Chrysler Museum) mean she meets WP:NARTIST. This is in line with established criteria that we apply all the time for artists. So objecting to that is to some degree rejecting established criteria. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggesting that based on the above, the Polaroid Collection should not be part of the consideration. Graywalls (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it could be, as she was in the collection once, making three collections ("once notable, always notable"). But even without it she meets the "several notable collections" guideline of WP:ARTIST.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not super-convinced, I don't like the work, and the COI editing is seriously off-putting, but there is sufficient material in reliable sources to sustain a stubby bio, and the inclusion of her work in two museum collections is supporting evidence that professionals with relevant experience in the field have critically engaged with her work (that's another way of saying that someone who knows what they're doing decided the work was important). Vexations (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: My thoughts exactly.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and special praise for ThatMontrealIP for finding that VMFA citation. I went looking when the AfD was posted, but couldn't find it. I agree with Vexations that the article's origins, and status at nomination were pretty offputting, but I think that ThatMontrealIP has done a very appropriate cleanup. Theredproject (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on museum collections as per NARTIST guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted per G5 by Ponyo (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shaji Thumpechirayil

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

The original articel was a copy of the subject's Facebook page and has since been hidden via revdel. The remaining stub is refbombed with unreliable sources, music streaming services and directory listings. Of all the references, only [6] and [7] might be considered for establishing notability, but the coverage is not substantial. Whpq (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G5.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As a historical note, this is the last article in the once-enormous Orphaned articles from February 2009 category. May it rest in pieces. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Luke's House

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

Seems to be a WP:MILL health service provider. I can't find anything besides passing mentions in any WP:RS. Nothing for Cornerstone Montgomery either, the company St. Luke's House merged into. Mbdfar (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aside from a few brief mentions in local sources, I am not finding any real coverage in reliable, secondary sources that demonstrate notability. This does not pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of European dust devils and dust devil outbreaks

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

These events are simply not notable. They typically do very little damage (see this pic of the very limited extent of the damage for the March 2020 dust devil listed in the article.) I'd be surprised if these even made the local news. Pichpich (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It would be one thing if the events had articles associated with them. I can't even find a single notable dust devil worldwide on Wikipedia, let alone enough in Europe to warrant a list. Mbdfar (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Incidents of minor roof damage don't require any notice whatsoever, ever. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dust devils are trivial. We might as well have a list of hailstorms. Mccapra (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTEVERYTHING Lightburst (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very few events. Fails WP:LISTN. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot see how any list of individual dust devils is notable. Lightburst (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flesh (musician)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Not the easiest name to search for, but even in conjunction with the names of various releases there doesn't appear to be any coverage of this artist in reliable third-party sources. Current sources are the artist's own Bandcamp and Soundcloud sites and the YouTube channel of his record label, and there doesn't seem to be anything better than this online. Richard3120 (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for bringing up the suggestion to delete the article. Granted, Flesh is not the most covered artist in history. I didn't know the standard for how notability is measured on Wikipedia (I understand it better now). When I created the article, I thought that several million views on one platform alone in theory warranted a dedicated article for the artist, especially given that comments have been left on the artist's music videos requesting additional information. Of course, this is not the same as third-party coverage. That said, now may indeed not necessarily be the best time to include this article in the main namespace for the reason you mentioned. I'd be happy to hear any other thoughts on the matter. Thanks again for reviewing! Thraex64 (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thraex64, pretty much any artist nowadays can get millions of views on YouTube, so it's not really anything out of the ordinary. Per WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, Wikipedia isn't a place to just place album track listings just to provide information without context – there are plenty of other sources like Amazon or iTunes or Discogs which provide this service. Richard3120 (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard3120, understood- thanks again. Perhaps the current content can serve as a basis for a future article should the need for it arise. Sorry for the trouble, feel free to delete the article as I don't know how to.

No problem – you can read WP:MUSICBIO for the notability requirements and WP:RS to understand what kind of sources are required for an article. You can keep the content in the sandbox section in your user page to work on it there, or as a draft article, but if it's in draftspace it will be deleted after six months if you haven't worked on it. The AfD will run its course and the article will be deleted once it's completed. Richard3120 (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In agreement with the nominator. The musician's bland name makes searching difficult, but a search for his various albums reveals no reliable coverage of any of them or the musician himself. All that can be found are his own self-promotions and social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DOOMSDAYER520, thank you for your input. The lack of coverage certainly didn't go unnoticed when I created the article. However given that some articles about related artists seem to be based almost entirely (if not entirely) on self-promoted sources or a type of circular-reporting, I wanted to give it a try as I've looked for the article myself on Wikipedia (and no doubt have other people). But in principle I agree that it doesn't meet the requirements to be in the main namespace at this time. In the meantime, the draft can be developed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Flesh_(musician) Thraex64 (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that Wikipedia is an all-volunteer site, so if there are other articles with the same deficiencies as this one, that merely means that nobody has noticed them yet. If you happen to see an article that is propped up with unreliable sources, you could try to improve it or even nominate it for deletion yourself. Sorry your attempt at an article for this musician isn't working out, but you are already contributing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly unlikely to go unnoticed and that's a good thing. To be fair I haven't found any articles that would perfectly meet the criteria for deletion as I understand it but then again I'm relatively new to editing. Thanks again in any case! Thraex64 (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Extraordinary People (2003 TV series). Nothing notable to merge. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl Whose Muscles are Turning to Bone

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

I am unable to locate reliable sources for this documentary film, an article which is the product of student editing. The article does not seem to meet NFILM or GNG. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG and NFILM. It's always a red flag when there are no sources found to make a Reception section. --RexxS (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Extraordinary People (2003 TV series). This refers to an episode of that TV show that is not notable on its own. PriceDL (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Extraordinary People (2003 TV series) as not independently notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per PriceDL and Atlantic306 discovery of a broader topic, merge and redirect to Extraordinary People (2003 TV series). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Royale

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

Non notable film with no coverage as to why it should have its own article. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the film does not have the substantive reviews we would need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A one-off Cinemax softcore with a single review by a pseudonymous (Tars Tarkas) is the name of a fictional character) website owner, there's noting else out there but dvd listings and pornhub hosting links to its sequel. Zaathras (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources so that WP:GNG is not passed imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one reference, even if we are generous and consider it WP:RS, is not sufficient to satisfy WP:N. Additional search didn't help either (sigh). Ipsign (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to A Star Is Born (2018 film). (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Maine

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

The article does not contain enough information that are not already present in the articles List of accolades received by A Star Is Born (2018 film) and A Star Is Born (2018 film). The main part of this article, the 'Character arc' section is basically the summary of the whole movie. Sricsi (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sricsi (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Star Is Born. KidAd (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Lloyd (DJ)

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

Non-notable local radio presenter. Article doesn't meet WP:GNG criteria. More like a CV than an article - Funky Snack (Talk) 17:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable radio DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about him. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unanimously, if one ignores - as I have done - the wall of text by VirtualSwayy. Sandstein 10:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imagined interaction

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

Non-notable behavioural theory, once you look past the obvious COI editing. Fails WP:GNG on the following points:

Significant coverage, so that original research is not required: Significant coverage does not exist (not even mentions on popsci sites, which is a low bar). We cannot write about the topic without doing original research, extracted from sources (ie the original paper, and derivatives thereof) written by the author.
Reliable: failed
Secondary sources: non-existent
Independent of subject: It's either discussed by the author(s), or by parties directly linked to the authors (same department at the same university). Not independent.

WP:GNG certainly fails here. Also see AfD on the author: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James M. Honeycutt. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of text

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please remove the non-notability deletion flag on this article

... and please forgive any errors I made in the process or formatting of this comment. I've never edited a wiki before and made an account specifically to object to this deletion.(here and on Honeycutt's personal page linked above page). I may not be an SPA forever, but I guess it's fair to call me that now. I am a much younger communication professor that teaches this guy's theories in multiple courses (as do lots of others). If I have a COI, it is simply that I object to the gross mischaracterizations made here (one example of many detailed below is "no reliable sources" including the study published in the top journal in the field of communication and a book that won the distinguished book award from the top academic association of this discipline.) VirtualSwayy (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

THIS THEORY IS CLEARLY NOTABLE BASED ON WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES WP:GNG
Flagging this for deletion based on notability is completely without merit and would set a precedent for ridiculous applications of the notability guidelines which would go FAR beyond "what wiki is not: a collection of random information" and reduce Wikipedia to nothing more than the small portion of theories in any given field which are the most popular. Deleting this topic would harm many communication undergraduate and graduate students, the majority of whom are required to learn this in a Comm Theory course. See, for example, this widely used textbook by Communication super-star Leslie Baxter, in which Honeycutt's Imagined interaction Theory comprises an entire chapter. (<--- a secondary source; see below).

1. Significant coverage: PASSED.
A wealth of clear evidence of significant coverage exists. The Wiki itself cites 20 publications across MULTIPLE PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS Many more (141 publications 7 books cited 4100 times) can be found with a university library search, including a lengthy Entry in the INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF COMMUNICATION, the flagship academic encyclopedia in the field (<--- a secondary source; see below).
This topic CLEARLY meets the significant coverage and OR requirements, which specifically state: "Primary sources may or MAY NOT be independent sources... a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted BY THE AUTHOR is a primary source". Exactly like the majority of the 141 peer-reviewed publications listed on this authors CV; social scientific research studies. The reliability guidelines specifically say "PRIMARY SOURCES that have been reputably published MAY BE USED in Wikipedia" and that they are "are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." That guideline is common sense, if Wikipedia were to prohibit sources which are "the original paper, and derivatives thereof", as the flag says, that literally would exclude every scientific theory in every field, because ALL good research is derivative of the original. Academic papers have literature reviews specifically to link a given study to previous studies as a replication, an extension, an or an improved research design, for example.

2.Reliable: PASSED.
The flag simply says "failed" which is not an actual argument. However, the reliability guidelines are also clearly met. It is comical to say these are unreliable! They guidelines state that "an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources". So, here are but a few examples: This article in HCR, a well respected journal, won top paper when it was presented at NCA in 2012, this book won distinguished book of the year in 2006, also from NCA, the top acdemic association/conference in the United States for this discipline. In 2015, this study on imagined interactions was published in THE most prestigious journal in the field of communication. I could go on and on presenting evidence here, but then I would get accused of bludgeoning.

He meets this criteria in another totally independent way, not just the general notability, but this meets a context specific reliability criteria. Scholarship specific reliability guidelines say that we can "confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. He has [4100 citations on Google Scholar!!] That's a lot in this discipline. A lot! I give a detailed analysis of why this is a lot on the personal Honeycutt page linked above.

3.Secondary sources: PASSED.
Again, the flag simply says "failed", and again, that's not an actual argument. Although many more exist, above I linked two secondary sources, the ENCYCLOPEDIA and the TEXTBOOK. They are clearly reliable under the reliability guidelines, which make plain that a researcher who publishes primary research can ALSO author their own secondary sources: [Secondary does not mean "independent" or "uninvolved".]. Wikipedia guidelines bolded that, not me! The guidelines make it clear that the EDITORIAL PROCESS ALONE CAN ESTABLISH RELIABIITY REGARDLESS OF AUTHORSHIP, which is why the guidelines say AGAIN, on the page for secondary sources, as context specific as you can get, that "[sources are not necessarily independent sources]" THE EDITORS OF THESE SECONDARY SOURCES SHOULD BE BEYOND REPROACH. The encyclopedia is published by ICA (THE TOP academic association for the discipline worldwide), and is "edited by an international team of the world's best scholars and teachers" The textbook, published by SAGE and edited by Leslie Baxter, a distinguished scholar of NCA as well as a Distinguished Professor at Iowa. who is held in extremely high regard by scholars in this discipline.

4. Independent of subject: PASSED.
The independence standard is clearly met. The guidelines exclude citing works that are a) "produced by the article's subject" or b) "someone affiliated with it". Clearly, a) can't be violated because the subject of the article is a theory and theories don't produce works. The standard in a) isn’t applicable to theories and is meant to disallow things like Bubba’s’s Auto Shop using it’s own press release that says it’s “internationally known” as evidence of notability. Also, b) is also not violated, because the guideline isn't intended to prevent citing works of researchers that are "affiliated with" the theories they research (which all researchers would be if “affiliated with” was construed to include “published on”). The standard in b) is intended to limit things like "advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website" as stated in the examples in the GNG:independence guidelines. Here the subject is an academic theory, so let's use an academic theory as an example; the Wikipedia page on the subject of "Evolution". Can we use Darwin? Not according to this deletion flag, Darwin is clearly "associated with" evolution so the standard the flag uses would disallow Darwin. What about establishing notability with something more modern, by citing H. Alan Orr, widely published on genetic adaptation? Nope. He is also "associated with" evolution so the standard the flag uses would disallow him as well, and so on, and so on, until we exclude every published expert on evolution from being used to establish that evolution meets the notability guidelines. Clearly, b) does not preclude citing James Honeycutt on the theory he published on for decades any more than it would exclude citing Darwin on evolution, and Darwin, or Orr, could write a review article that could be a secondary source for evolution, becasue AS LONG AS THE EDITORIAL PROCESS IS SOUND RESEARCHERS ARE ALLOWED TO AUTHOR THEIR OWN SECONDARY SOURCES. The guidelines literally say it in bold as the link above shows. Furthermore, as discussed above, this article’s many primary sources, which are published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, meet the OR guidelines, which specifically state: "Primary sources may or MAY NOT be independent sources... a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source". VirtualSwayy (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)— VirtualSwayy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

These are responses to the comments below. It is collapsed to avoid the appearance of bludgeoning, but it contains relevant discussion nonetheless.

MANY MORE LINKS TO SECONDARY & PRIMARY SOURCES NOT AUTHORED BY HONEYCUTT! (scroll to bottom)

VirtualSwayy (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY TO: Delete a muddy mess. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC),
Delete. Xxanthippe couldn't have said it better: a muddy mess. – Majavah talk · edits 17:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete - The topic is probably notable, but significant portions of the article are incomprehensible. This is one of the clearer cases where an article should be blown up and started over. The collapsed argument by the SPA and the article have more or less the same quality. This does not mean that the SPA is a suckpoppet, but it may mean that the topic attracts this sort of rhetoric. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's just group these three because they are all the same. They are unexplained "votes" in the truest sense of the word. (2nd one is literally just a ditto).

All of these completely punt on the issue that was flagged, notability. Hell, one flat out concedes it. Deletion for an unflagged issue violates the discussion period requirement. participants can't choose to comment on a new issue brought up late in the discussion.
None of these reference ANY specific guideline that is violated and so the claims impossible to objectively judge against a wiki criteria.
None of these reference ANY portion of the page so we are forced to imagine what the violation might be. This is presumably why the admin instructions say "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements"
None of these "consider alternatives to deletion" as the admin instructions ask. Alternatives are especially important here, because...

MOST IMPORTANTLY, DELETION IS NOT APPROPRIATE HERE. MESSY/UNCLEAR CONTENT IS NOT ONE OF THE CLEARLY ENUMERATED REASONS FOR DELETION [[8]].

Rebuttal to: the flag says "discussed by the author(s), or by parties directly linked to the authors (same department at the same university). Not independent."

This flag isn't even factually accurate. Even briefly Googling these authors shows that several of them are at different universities. For example, Honeycutt: LSU, Mapp: UL-Monroe, Ford: Chair at Montevallo, Keaton: Ashland University, Vickery: SUNY, Hample: Maryland, Hatcher: LA Tech, Madison: UL-Lafayette, Rold: Texas A&M. I stopped Googling there with a certainty this claim is false, but even if it weren’t, it would simply mean that the flag evidences a misunderstanding of how academic research and publication work. It is the norm for researchers in the same department to collaborate, and for Ph.D. students to publish on their advisor’s theories, both while they are students, and throughout their career as Professors.

Rebuttal to:The flag says "not even mentions(sic) on popsci sites"

Literally, so what? Why are "popsci sites" more definitive than textbooks, countless peer-reviewers and editors of multiple communication journals, and the edited, peer reviewed flagship academic encyclopedia of the discipline?

REPLY TO:*Comment - The argument by User:VirtualSwayy that "Deleting this topic would harm many communication undergraduate and graduate students" is nonsense. Either the topic is discussed in Communication Theory textbooks, or it is not discussed in Communication Theory textbooks. If it is discussed in the textbooks, it will still be in them after the article is deleted. If it is not in the textbooks, then it is outside the usual scope of study. If it is being studied because it is in Wikipedia but not in the textbooks, then it is original research, which is a misuse of Wikipedia, and is not notable. I have not reviewed whether the article should be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an obvious logical fallacy, called the forced-choice or either or fallacy. Things can be in textbooks AND ALSO students can benefit from supplement material, which is actually why supplementary material exist, you see? Wikipedia is usually quite accurate, at least in my discipline (communication). I don't allow citation to wikipedia in papers, but I encourage use of several wikipedia pages as supplements in intro comm. Also, there is no "IF" about it, its in textbooks, like the one I linked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualSwayy (talk • contribs)

REPLY TO: Comment - At least one statement by User:VirtualSwayy is clearly true. They say that they created an account to object to the deletion. That is true. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

see Admin Instructions. "commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive." And... If a statement could be more than 100% irrelevant to the discussion, this would be. It demonstrates another fallacy (non-sequitur) while simultaneously demonstrating one of the most intellectually lazy rhetorical techniques that exits, paralipsis, where you imply that I made false statements, but you don't actually say it, so you don't have to make any actual argument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualSwayy (talk • contribs)

REPLY TO: *Delete – this is based entirely on primary sources, and there don't appear to be any reliable, secondary sources that discuss this subject. Fails WP:GNG. – bradv🍁 01:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Well if the ones I linked above didn't convince you, there are countless others, so...

HERE ARE MORE SECONDARY SOURCES ALL REPLUTABLE AND NOT BY HONEYCUTT:

  * This textbook not written by honeycutt
  * Another textbook not written by Honeycutt
  * This Encyclopedia Entry not written by Honeycutt
  * This book chapter not by honeycutt
  * This review by Jim Abbot of Honeycutt's award-winning book

HERE ARE MORE PRIMARY RESEARCH STUDIES NOT BY HONEYCUTT:

There are A LOT more since he has been cited 4100 times, but here is a sampling including this

recent article in the NCA's most prestigious journal.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10417940903006057

https://search.proquest.com/openview/e3db9d4595a9fe3984b3459cb084d84e/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2029838

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01463373.2011.597273

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1041794X.2014.939295

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093650212438392

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/F760-0671-2402-K65N

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08934215.2014.936563

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1041794X.2012.726688

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-2623-4_15

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/IC.30.2.d

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/IC.32.1.c

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v53n03_04

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/IC.32.4.b

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0276236616683897

https://proa.ua.pt/index.php/jdmi/article/view/913

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/014466610X524263

Delete – this is based entirely on primary sources, and there don't appear to be any reliable, secondary sources that discuss this subject. Fails WP:GNG. – bradv🍁 01:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The argument by User:VirtualSwayy that "Deleting this topic would harm many communication undergraduate and graduate students" is nonsense. Either the topic is discussed in Communication Theory textbooks, or it is not discussed in Communication Theory textbooks. If it is discussed in the textbooks, it will still be in them after the article is deleted. If it is not in the textbooks, then it is outside the usual scope of study. If it is being studied because it is in Wikipedia but not in the textbooks, then it is original research, which is a misuse of Wikipedia, and is not notable. I have not reviewed whether the article should be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At least one statement by User:VirtualSwayy is clearly true. They say that they created an account to object to the deletion. That is true. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: If a statement could be more than 100% irrelevant to the discussion, this would be. Thanks for lowering the bar even further with this 2 for 1. It demonstrates another fallacy (non-sequitur) while simultaneously demonstrating one of the most intellectually lazy rhetorical techniques that exits, paralipsis, where you imply that I made false statements, but you don't actually say it, so you don't have to make any actual argument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualSwayy (talk • contribs)

Delete a muddy mess. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC),[reply]

Delete. Xxanthippe couldn't have said it better: a muddy mess. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 17:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic is probably notable, but significant portions of the article are incomprehensible. This is one of the clearer cases where an article should be blown up and started over. The collapsed argument by the SPA and the article have more or less the same quality. This does not mean that the SPA is a suckpoppet, but it may mean that the topic attracts this sort of rhetoric. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was drawn to this discussion by the related AfD on James M. Honeycutt. The article here does not make a convincing case for notability. I am skeptical that it does hold, and in any case WP:TNT applies. Comment that the WP:BLUDGEON wielded by the SPA (and interaction with wikipedia software) is making the discussion a bit difficult to navigate. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. As best as possible I've put aside my primary gut reaction at these broadcast sprays of academic logorrhea, in the article and here and at James M. Honeycutt. That reaction is impatience with my time being wasted which gradually ripens into mild disgust. Just being real. It reflects badly on LSU for one thing. With more objective coolness I believe there might be a valid idea struggling to breathe under this suffocating pile of COI & broken ideas & undeveloped writing skills but it's nobody's job to go in there and rescue it. --Lockley (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The very first sentence (Imagined interactions (IIs) are a type of social cognition and mental imagery grounded in symbolic interactionism in which individuals imagine conversations with significant others for a variety of purposes) is both the antithesis of clarity and a copyvio of Honeycutt and Ford (2001). Opaque copyvio continues with beneficial mechanism for operationalizing the study of intrapersonal communication. Then we get Honeycutt et al. (1989) discuss how IIs have their theoretical foundation in the work of symbolic interactionists and phenemonologists, including Mead (1934), Dewey (1922) and Schutz (1962). This is lifted from Honeycutt and Ford (2001), with the trivial substitution of "et al." for "and his colleagues". I'd fail a student who wrote a paper so dishonestly. A top-to-bottom rewrite would be necessary to save this article, supposing that the notability case can be made for it, which I doubt. XOR'easter (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is a hot combo of really shitty original research and promo. Praxidicae (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See, mutatis mutandis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imagined interaction. Sandstein 10:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Honeycutt

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

Non-notable academic, once you look past the obvious COI editing (most of which was cut down), for the following reasons:

Under WP:NPROF, only (1) or (5) could possibly apply. Analysing both:

The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.: We do not need to consider the limitations of the former "broadly construed" part, because this individual's impact cannot be demonstrated by independent reliable sources (the 2nd condition).
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.: Being "Professor Emeritus" simply means retired professor. His position is listed simply as "professor emeritus" on Louisiana State University's website: https://www.lsu.edu/hss/cmst/people/faculty/JHoneycutt.php -- no reliable sources to call him distinguished. So this criteria also fails.

On WP:GNG: we fail on significant coverage, secondary sources and independence of subject (the few books on the matter are all authored by him, or he's a key contributor).

We do not give every single lecturer and/or professor a Wikipedia article. The criteria to determine the cases where an article is warranted is not met in this case. Also see AfD for his theory: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imagined interaction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE REMOVE THIS DELETION FLAG. IT DOESN"T EVEN PASS THE SNIFF TEST!

... and please forgive formatting or procedural errors. First day on wiki, I joined specifically bc I object to these two flags (here and on the theory page). I may not be an SPA forever, but I guess it's fair to call me that now. I am a much younger communication professor that teaches this guy's theories in multiple courses (as do lots of others). If I have a COI, it is simply that I object to the gross mischaracterizations made here (one example of many detailed below is "no reliable sources" including the study published in the top journal in the field of communication and a book that won the distinguished book award from the top academic association of this discipline.)

UNDER WP:NPROF, BOTH (1) AND (5) ARE MET.

has held... distinguished professor...: Flag links his faculty bio and says " -- no reliable sources to call him distinguished."

As the flag correctly states, "Being "Professor Emeritus" simply means retired professor." So what logical gymnastics moves does one use to get from there, to where it ALSO means "not distinguished". When distinguished Professors retire they become... wait for it.... Professor Emeritus. But that's not the worst thing. The worst thing is...

YOU ARE NOT EVEN READING YOUR OWN "EVIDENCE" THAT YOU LINK!!! YOUR LINK clearly states he received the distinguished faculty award at LSU in 2012. This can be verified with the office of academic affairs' HERE. Just in case you don't think a distinguished faculty award makes you a "distinguished professor", let me clear that one up. It awards "sustained excellence" and carries with it a permanent salary increase.At LSU, an award with a salary increase is classified as a "designated honorific". Recipients of designated honorifics at LSU are unambiguously and explicitly considered "distinguished professors". You should actually READ my evidence. It's really, really good, and by "my evidence" I include your link, because every link here from both you and me supports James Honeycutt meeting NPROF(5). Nothing supports your claim. NADA!

THE END! THIS UNABILGOUSLY AND VERIFIABLY MEETS THE ONLY CONDITION THAT NEEDS TO BE MET, NPROF(5). Please Remove the deletion flag. VirtualSwayy (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FOR THE DECIDING ADMINISTRATOR (or anyone interested):

Here is a detailed analysis of other objections (quoting specific guidelines and presenting evidence-based arguments that the standard is met.

This is collapsed to avoid the appearance of bludgeoning, but it contains relevant discussion nonetheless. VirtualSwayy (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the discussion policy indicates: "the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes, as [strength of argument is also very important]. The strength of these thoughtfully argued replies should be evident in comparison to the "votes" they respond to. These "votes" assert evidence-free objections with brief buzzwords ("unreliable", , "fails", "borderline") accompanied by a non-specific link to a page full of numerous, specific, and varied criteria and I guess we are supposed to assume the buzzword inherently demonstrates a violation of one or more of them. The guidelines say "A "vote" that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale may be completely ignored or receive little consideration... It is important, therefore, to also explain why you are voting the way you are."

significant impact: ->

Flag says: On WP:GNG: we fail on significant coverage, secondary sources and independence of subject (the few books on the matter are all authored by him, or he's a key contributor).

Doesn't even apply. This is flat out ignoring what BOTH GNG AND NPROF EXPLICITLY SAY, which is NPROF is "explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline" and that "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline" (like NPROF). QUOTE: "failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is IRRELEVANT if an academic is notable under this guideline." VirtualSwayy (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY TO: * Comment ...Google scholar puts his h-index at 34.... perception that large chunks of it were written by someone with a COI.(talk) 21:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

While this is overall irrelevant since (5) is met, it may be somewhat relevant under (1), but it doesn't seem definitive, or even terribly important given that the NPROF guidelines for impact don't place value on any particular metric. If h-index was important it would say so, because it does give general and specific notes regarding the many ways to establish impact, none of which include h-index. The general notes simply indicate the standard is impact above the "average professor", a low bar which the comments [[9]] indicate he has met. Even if you place stock in the H-index, hirsch himself said 20 was good and 40 was outstanding. 34 is well above good and closer to outstanding, so you don't have to do any math once you realize that if there are some professors with BAD scores (there are), even if the average professor has a good (or even above) score, it is highly unlikely that 34 would not beat the average, so even this comment would say don't delete, this criteria is met under the "average professor test" enunciated in the general notes to NPROF.

Additionally, NPROF specific notes for criteria 1 indicate that it can be met by by a substantial number of citations. He has over 4100 citations according to the link above, which is nowhere near average. It is very high for a communications researcher. Let's be generous and just dock him the 800 citations that seem weird on google scholar, bringing him to only (LOL) 3300 citations, STILL way higher than anything an "average" professor will ever see. Here are some numbers to help you realize how much higher, put in terms of citations per article rather than a career total. 44% of publications are not cited AT ALL. Simply getting 10 citations puts you in the top quartile (top 24% actually). Honeycutt has THRITY-SIX ARTICLES OVER 25, AND TOO MANY TO COUNT IN THE TOP QUARTILE! He has 5 publications with over 100 citations, which puts a paper in the top 1.8% of papers.

Also, NPROF specific notes for criteria 1 include "contributing factors... significant academic awards and honors... may include, for example... awards by notable academic and scholarly societies". Among other awards Honeycutt has received BOTH the top article of the year award AND the distinguished book of the year award from the National Communication Association (NCA), the flagship association of the discipline for the United States (top article of the year TWICE). NCA has also awarded him top paper 12 different times. The International communication Association (ICA), the discipline's most prestigious association worldwide, has awarded him top paper 3 different times. That is so far above average that you can't even see average from up there. VirtualSwayy (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY TO: Delete – from the number of citations this is a very borderline WP:NPROF case.... lack of reliable sources....cannot be easily solved.... needs to be deleted per WP:TNT. 🍁 01:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a non-specific evidence free assertion these citations lack reliability (I guess ALL of these many citations are unreliable? why are they unreliable? Maybe make an actual argument ab out the unreliability of just one or two?) In this case the [|reliability guidelines] are clearly met. They state specifically state that "article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. DO we have any articles in reputable peer-reviewed journals? Why yes we do! Comm Monographs is literally THE TOP JOURNAL in the discipline. Check! DO we have any, let's say, books that have been vetted by the scholarly community. Indeed! Distinguished book of the year award from the discipline's top scholarly association in the US. Check! Both are already cited on the wiki page. Need I go on? VirtualSwayy (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY TO: Delete per WP:TNT. While I think that the subject is probably marginally notable per WP:NPROF C1 and possibly C8 (although certainly not C5), the case doesn't look so strong per previous comments. The unreferenced mess that is the existing article would need complete reworking in order to be a useful article. Blow it up. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing marginal about it! He IS a distinguished professor. It's an evidentiary slam dunk above! A bizarre reluctance to acknowledge that affects the credibility of your "unreferenced mess" arguments, since some may perceive it as an end-run around the slam dunk on notability.

UNREFERENCED? It has plenty of references. I address their reliability above and extensively on the [AfP page]. You literally say NOTHING about their unreliability. MESS? How? I see a introductory paragraph describing the who he is, very well delineated sections for his early education, later career, and his varied research interests, followed by sample lists of books, and then of peer-reviewed articles. It's an extraordinary claim to say that is such a "mess" it can't be fixed. VirtualSwayy (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here is the link to his google scholar page. Google scholar puts his h-index at 34. However two of the articles that factor into that, including the single most cited article which accounts for more than 20% of his lifetime citations, don't have his name listed as an author. Agreed that the article is a mess and creates the perception that large chunks of it were written by someone with a COI. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed odd that some of the GS entries do not contain his name as author. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I am changing my comment to delete, and have edited my top level statement to reflect that. Read through WP:TNT and that seems a good fit for the current incarnation of the article. Entirely independent of any conclusion about the underlying subject's notability either way. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – from the number of citations this is a very borderline WP:NPROF case, but the promotional writing and lack of reliable sources are major problems that cannot be easily solved. At the very least this needs to be deleted per WP:TNT. – bradv🍁 01:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Despite all the objections from the subject's affiliate above, this article still does not have a single reference to an independent reliable source. If there any usable sources out there, I am unable to find them. – bradv🍁 23:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HERE IS A LONG LIST OF SECONDARY AND PRIMARY SOURCES NOT BY HONEYTCUTT.
This list is linked literally 10 lines of text above you, as well as linked in the very first post in this discussion, all were easily found via google. VirtualSwayy (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And... REFER TO ME BY MY USERNAME. "Affiliate" is a transparent and petty little attempt to assault my credibility, and an unfounded one. I disclosed my interest in this topic as the very first thing I wrote. You SHOULD be focused on the arguments rather than the user that posted them, but you will need to actually READ the discussion first.

Not only did you completely ignore the link to this list above (Quote: "It has plenty of references. I address their reliability above and extensively on the [AfP page].") but also you seem not to have read ANY of the discussion, OR the guidelines you link. IF you did you would know the reason this long list of sources is linked to another discussion. It's because the guidelines and the posts above both make it clear that in this discussion...
Your argument is COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT ACCORDING NPROF, which states that "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions... are notable" and there is 100% incontrovertible evidence at the top of this discussion, from the LSU Office of Academic Affairs that he was a distinguished professor, meeting NPROF (5). The plentiful sources below that you were "unable to find" pertain ONLY to the requirements of NPROF (1). Even if everyone conceded your argument, IT WOULD STILL BE IMPROPER TO DELETE THIS PAGE FOR NOTABILITY, EVEN IF NO SOURCES EXISTED.

HERE ARE MORE SECONDARY SOURCES ALL REPLUTABLE AND NOT BY HONEYCUTT:

  * This textbook not written by Honeycutt
  * Another textbook not written by Honeycutt
  * This Encyclopedia Entry not written by Honeycutt
  * This book chapter not by Honeycutt
  * This review by Jim Abbot of Honeycutt's award-winning book

<br

HERE ARE MORE PRIMARY RESEARCH STUDIES NOT BY HONEYCUTT:

There are A LOT more since he has been cited 4100 times, but here is a sampling including this

recent article in the NCA's most prestigious journal.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10417940903006057

https://search.proquest.com/openview/e3db9d4595a9fe3984b3459cb084d84e/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2029838

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01463373.2011.597273

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1041794X.2014.939295

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093650212438392

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/F760-0671-2402-K65N

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08934215.2014.936563

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1041794X.2012.726688

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-2623-4_15

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/IC.30.2.d

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/IC.32.1.c

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v53n03_04

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/IC.32.4.b

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0276236616683897

https://proa.ua.pt/index.php/jdmi/article/view/913

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/014466610X524263

Delete Even cutting out the dubious cites on GS we are left with around 3000 cites and an h-index of 32. Marginal for a pass of WP:Prof#C1 in the well cited field of pop-pschology. His citations on Research Gate [10] are 1263, some three times less than those on GS: curiouser and curiouser. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. While I think that the subject is probably marginally notable per WP:NPROF C1 and possibly C8 (although certainly not C5), the case doesn't look so strong per previous comments. The unreferenced mess that is the existing article would need complete reworking in order to be a useful article. Blow it up. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per above analysis. Given the COI problems here and at the related Imagined interaction, also up for deletion, plus the suspiciously similar verbal styles shared by the OP and their single-issue defender, this is a candidate for G11 speedy deletion as bald self-promotion. Blow it up. --Lockley (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While a $2000 raise and a watch are nice, I remain unconvinced that they represent the kind of top-notch lifetime achievement in scholarly work that WP:PROF#C5 is about. With the notability case borderline at best, the current content is a mess, beyond the reach of ordinary editing to fix. WP:TNT. XOR'easter (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ramada, California

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

Yet another Sacramento Northern siding, now vanished into the orchard the line sliced through. Not a community of any sort. Mangoe (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the only mention of a "Ramada" in Mansfield's more than 1,000 page History of Butte County, California (1918) is a mention of "Ramada Ranch". The 8th volume of the "Western Canner and Packer" from 1916 contains two mentions of Ramada. First mention: "Planting almonds at Ramada, Butte County: In the Ramada district of Butte County extensive plantings of almonds are being made as the soil has proven to be favorable." Second mention: "Prune plantings. ... Butte County: Preliminary estimates of planting in the district about Oroville indicate that at least 700 acres will be planted this year. The largest planting will be at Ramada, where it is estimated that three hundred acres will be planted." The only thing that gives me any pause is the mention of "Ramada district". That's most likely early-20th-century agrispeak for "in the vicinity of Ramada Ranch", but there's a chance it isn't so I'm weak delete for now, in case anyone turns up evidence that the "Ramada district" was a more widely recognized farming district and not just an ad hoc reference. But it is most likely that "Ramada" is nothing more than a ranch and a nearby siding that borrowed the ranch's name. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 00:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 17:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable locale. --Lockley (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to CJ's point, district doesn't necessarily mean community. This one is not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Birdhouse Skateboards. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 22:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Beginning (2007 film)

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

Non notable film with no coverage as to why it should have its own article. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Birdhouse_Skateboards#The_Beginning_(2007). I think that this could be summarized into a paragraph and placed in the main article for Birdhouse - it doesn't really seem like there's any true coverage out there for this film. I will note, however, that the company article needs quite a bit of work as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above, not independently notable imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While the article has needed work for a long time, and possibly may always, consensus is that it passes at least WP:GNG. Hzh has provided several great print sources. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crab soccer

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

This was the subject of an Afd discussion back in the early days of Wikipedia, and was kept on the basis of a large number of variations on "I can't personally find any sources but I'm sure they exist" and nothing even remotely based on policy, even the relatively laxer policies of that time. Thirteen years later, and the purported sources still consist of a Wikipedia page, a four-sentence entry in a Boy Scouts directory, a dead link, and a single paragraph in a blog entry from 2014. I've looked—hard—for anything approaching a reliable source; while I can find a fair few mentions on blogs and personal website, I'm literally finding nothing (on either Crab soccer or Crab football) that even remotely could be considered a source for Wikipedia's purposes. ‑ Iridescent 16:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 16:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google Books search brings up lots of coverage, and there are even mentions in a few scholarly articles. A web search was deficient, though. SportingFlyer T·C 18:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found this straight-away. I know it is/was played in primary schools in the UK, as I played it in PE classes. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I vaguely remember playing this at school. But since when did we have articles on playground/school activities? Lack of sources is key here. Giant Snowman 14:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep additional sourcing to show there is reliable source coverage of this exists. We need better sourcing and more historical analysis, but this is a subject that passes notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary school kid's games with non-concrete rules is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or at the very least merge as a WP:ATD to some relevant article about football variants). WP:DINC, and in any case there appears to be sufficient coverage of this in proper sources such as the one Lugnuts indentifies. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources to satisfy GNG, just a few here - [11][12][13]. Hzh (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Craig-Morgan

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

This article has somehow existed since November of 2005 and had a one source tag since 2009. However the one source is IMDb which does not meet the requirements of a reliable source. IMDb has obaque and clearly not working fact checking, and it seeks to cover everyone in what amounts to directory style, so it is not an indication of notability. Biographies of living people especially require a reliable source, but we do not have that here. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth the article was created by someone who had not even created a Wikipedia account. We no longer allow non-account creation of articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable actor with no independent reliable sources found. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non notable actor. Spleodrach (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Stone

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

The sourcing is very bad. Some of the link do not exist anymore (not even on wayback machine). But the real point is that there is nothing in the source that proves notability. I looked myself for better sourcing but i couldn't find anything that proves notability. not even searching his real name "Patrick Marano".AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable performer of in pornography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Our notability standards for porn actors at WP:PORNBIO used to be abysmally lax, so that practically every person who'd ever been in porn at all passed them by virtue of being technically verifiable in the porn industry's equivalent of IMDb. But they've since been tightened up substantially, and this guy doesn't pass them anymore. His only other potential notability claim is that he was also a single-station local radio host in a single media market, which is not an instant free pass over our notability standards for broadcasters either. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. Not to mention the name is very common. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom; I tried to look for news on him - found only 3 passing references, . Ipsign (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel Washington

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

the sourcing of this article is one short article on Xbiz about him signing exclusive and the list of the winner of Hookies Award (definitely not an important prize). I searched some significant source myself but I couldn't find any. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 15:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 15:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The anthropologist William Leap wrote two (very similar) articles about anonymous internet comments on a men's pornography website, both of which mention various postings about Mr. Washington[14][15]. I suppose that this is coverage of a sort, but I doubt that it could support a BLP. The only other coverage I found was this interview in Instinct and passing mentions or tabloid gossip in the Bay Area Reporter and Queerty. Cheers, gnu 57 16:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, despite Mr. Washington's many accomplishments. --Lockley (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep News search [16] shows 86 articles, mostly about him. While most mentions are passing, but [17], [18], and [19] seem to be admissible refs (plus dozens of others may count collectively too), so he is IMO passing WP:N threshold. Ipsign (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ipsign: The Queerty one is about the fashion company Diesel, not Mr. Washington (though his name does appear in a comment below the article). The Instinct listicle is marked as "contributor" content: "This post was created by one of our Contributing Writers and does not reflect the opinion of Instinct Magazine or the other Contributing Writers when it comes to this subject." I'm not familiar with SentidoG, but the article you've suggested looks like a blog post to me. Cheers, gnu 57 19:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per gnu57 ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pillory. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 10:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pranger

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

History

This article was created on 9 July 2004 by user: Husnock. It had no sources — but that was not usual for articles created at that time.
The {{1911}} was added 25 March 2006 by user:Fastifex
The title parameter, "title=Pranger", was added on 7 May 2017 by user:DerbyCountyinNZ
Today I am going through the backlog of {{EB1911}} and came to this article (Pranger) which is listed in "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference"
- There is no such article in the EB1911 see Wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Vol 22:4
- The only mention of this word in EB1911 is in Ws: EB1911: Branks
- It is also mentioned on Wikisource:An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Pranger

As there currently is no German entry for this word (and it is a German word not an English one), there is no reason for English Wikipedia to have an an article under this name. Particularly as English language sources that mention it seem to not be certain whether it is best related to a "Scold's bridle" (EB1911) or the "Pillory" (The American Cyclopaedia: A Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge, Volume 13: Pillory).

This article was created with no sources and after 16 years there are still none (and no evidence that it is anything but a German term for something in English, so it is not a notable item in English), it is time it was deleted. PBS (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thanks to nom for the detailed and model WP:BEFORE research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete - the de-Wiki article Pranger corresponds and is linked to the en-Wiki article Pillory, so possibly redirect the en-Wiki Pranger to Pillory. If not, then delete, as it is already on Wiktionary. Ingratis (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Pillory. Clearly notable, although maybe not as a separate article, given it is a type of pillory. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is notable about this a foreign word and how do you reckon that it is a different type of pillory? (people have been tied to a post and pilloried in many countries).PBS (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What part of the unsourced text in "Pranger" do you recommend merging into "Pillory"? -- PBS (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pillory. EB 1911, 21, p611 (article 'Pillory') says "In Germany it was known as pranger." Any other content is unsourced and may be WP:OR and should not be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K.M. Akhtaruzzaman

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

I just blocked the creator of this article for undisclosed paid editing. The article is terrible and might be nominated for G11 as well. Even if it turned out that the person was notable, the article as it stands is not acceptable. Note also that an article on the Akhtar Group, by the same creator, was deleted twice in 2015 for being promotional. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly promotional. Wikipedia is not the place to boost one's online profile. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article about the subject. No reliable external sources to substantiate notability. — Infogapp1 (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Purely promotional article. -Hatchens (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Patton

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

Sourcing is irrelevant and there is nothing pointing toward notability. I searched for more sources and all I could find is that somehow spread the world that Mike Pence is a former porn star and got confused with Brad Patton and this is definitely not something relevant. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Subject may be notable under his birth name as an athlete (skater), including a claim of a national-level junior championship. These issues have not been evaluated. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

actually i also searched for sources about his skater career, with his real name, but I didn't find anything that would make any difference. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I did some extra researches of him as a skater and i still can't sill anything significative. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. FWIW, all news refs about him were in the context of accusing Mike Pence to be gay - an obviously passing mention. Ipsign (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coylet Inn

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

Reviewed as part of NPP. I kind of wanted to keep, this is the sort of article I like, but I can't see how it meets NBUILDING (for the building), NCORP as a business, or plain old GNG. Current sourcing is a 404 link to a commercial website, a listing in a directory, a brief mention in a local newspaper article about a fire at the building, and a brief mention in a local newspaper article about a spooky encounter at a hen do there. I've checked sites like Historic Environment Scotland and Canmore to see if they have anything, but all I could find was a passing mention in Canmore's description of the nearby (and similarly named) Coylet Hotel, a related but separate archaeological site. Can't find any better sourcing, so I can't find a route to notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A number of additional sources have now been added to the article; however, none of them gives any significant detail about the hotel, the details are all about the ghost story associated with it, and the fact that a film was made about the ghost. From all of the combined sources, all we can say about the hotel itself is that it exists, that Emma Thompson had a wedding reception there, and that it is a 17th Century coaching inn (and that last one is rather dubious - none of the sources are RS for architectural details, and from what I can make out from the pictures it looks much more recent - it's possible that there was merely a coaching in on the site in the 17th C, or that some of the fabric of the current building is old, but without a good architectural source I wouldn't be comfortable with that description). I would be happy to withdraw the nomination if a decent description of the building could be found in an RS like a Pevsner, or if some descriptions of the hotel itself were found (in the form of reviews) in RS, but at the moment I would suggest a possible merge and redirect to The Blue Boy (film), which covers the film made about the ghost story (which is really what the substantial sources are about). GirthSummit _(blether) 10:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I have now managed to get my hands on a copy of FA Walker's book on the region (part of the Pevsner series of architectural guides). It has descriptions of several buildings on the shores of Loch Eck, but this isn't one of them. This strengthens my view that the inn isn't notable as a building - those books are pretty comprehensive in their coverage. It could in theory still be notable as a hotel if there were multiple reviews in RS that would satisfy NCORP, but I'm not seeing them. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't keep Wikipedia pages about a house just because there is a story about a haunting. Show RS about the house outside of a ghost story. Sgerbic (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable bed and breakfast. --Lockley (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DSOGaming

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

Fails WP:GNG / WP:NWEB. Non-notable gaming website, created by a possible WP:COI. (IceWelder, I've went through the proper channels). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from the coverage I found in the VG search engine I only seemed to find passing mentions as opposed to the significant coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 16:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not offer significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 17:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. It's possible that this site could even become a source itself for VG criticism, but that doesn't mean there's enough independent coverage to explain what this source is. No prejudice against re-creating it once reliable sources are found, as always. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Guevara

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

YouTuber (with 237k subscribers) that does not meet GNG. Eostrix (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication found of subject’s notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the YouTuber. Search results mostly show various people bearing that name with various occupations instead. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not there to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It lacks WP:GNG and Google search results indicate that there are no sources that discuss the subject in detail. Reinforcing the notability of the subject would be very difficult for those that may want to help. Cryforjustice (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Chester, South Carolina#Police. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Police Department (South Carolina)

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

Not enough for its own article. Merge to Chester, South Carolina. Fuddle (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agree with merge but I think this isn't really an AFD issue - it's notable, just probably better covered under the geographical location. FOARP (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on town. This is way too small a town to justify a seperate article without really good sourcing to show notability very strongly, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is the best idea. --Lockley (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - easily fits in city article and there is no reason it needs to be separate. LadyofShalott 01:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' I had to write it to see how hefty it would be. I will get to it in the next few hours. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done But I am never sure how to delete a page and make a redirect. Can someone lend a hand?--''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as A10. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of MasterChef Junior episodes

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

Unnecessary list creation, all info is completely copied and pasted from the exact same information in the individual season articles. In addition no such list exists for the parent show MasterChef (American TV series). SanAnMan (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 09:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All the episodes are on individual seasons' articles. There is no need for an amalgamated list. Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. The nomination has been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SC-76 Thunderbolt

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

Fails GNG. The one primary source used to cite this article is well short of RS, a google search found nothing attributable. Cavalryman (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn – notability established by FOARP. Cavalryman (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. Particularly these two sources: 1 (see the review on p. 10) 2 (see the extended quote from Simon Schofield - a defence expert). There's also some coverage of the appearance of the rifle at IDEAS 2014 but I'm not sure if that is based on a press-release or not. I've added these references and a couple of other ones to the article - take a look. FOARP (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation.

Some notes: it seems unlikely that this film is a hoax, as evidenced by the film having a page on Rotten Tomatoes (here) (although there are no critic or audience reviews), and having received some coverage in some publications, such as Medium (here), despite this being essentially a reprinted press release. Furthermore, the article does not qualify for WP:G5 speedy deletion because it was created before its creator was found to be socking. Also, please note that these side notes are not an !vote within this closure. Rather, they are just notes to address some aspects of the nomination for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dajjal: The Slayer and His Followers

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

WP:HOAX and WP:NOTPROMO, no mention in any RS or verification that this film even exists. Created by the same sock farm that made the now twice AfD'd Rana Abrar (the director here) article. Other promotional articles (now deleted) for non-existent films by the same sock farm include: Son of Kashmir: Burhan, The Evil Marriage. A prod was removed without any improvement to the article (adding simply references to editable databases). I cannot find a single RS which reviews it or even verifies the existence of this film besides trailers. Gotitbro (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the film doesn't exist, then the article should definitely be deleted. But after a quick Google search, there is actually a lot of websites that cover this film. Sam1529 (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This film has a lot of media coverage and it is a notable topic, you can just see by searching on Google. There are many controversies on this film which is why it is known by many people. There are many ratings and reviews from large film and media agencies on it. Just because pages related to it got deleted doesn't make this film less notable.

These pages are being removed by those who are against the movie of another controversial film "Son of Kashmir: Burhan" which is also a very notable film as its news was aired on famous Pakistan and Indian News channels but it got removed out of animosity of those who opposes the topic of the film.

One can search about Dajjal Film and see its presence on media is very notable. A speedy deletion of this film has been rejected just a month ago which was made by the same person who is now putting it for deletion again and again.--JonnyK.2 (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep Films

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

Not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist because the nominator has been blocked.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no sources to substantiate General notability, the website suggests no coverage of that kind exists. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tigris.org

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

Not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found my way here from a sockpuppet. This website clearly does not establish notability and should absolutely be deleted. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist because the nominator has been blocked.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadochismo

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

I only found about four sources for this album, and three of them were just lists of weird metal subgenres that used it as an example of Pornogrind. There was one album review in German but I’m not sure that’s enough to prove notability on its own. Dronebogus (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found a few reliable sources which talk about the abum: [20], [21], [22] and [23]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. My vote stands. I won't reply any further. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much as my eyes roll straight over my scalp whenever I see Mr. Lil' Attitude doing his turkey strut routine as above, he's presented four usable reviews here. That's good enough. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somatosensory rehabilitation of pain

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously proposed for deletion on the basis that there wasn't a peer reviewed trial. Whilst that is not a good reason in its own right, there are a lack of appropriate sources for this technique. No textbooks in the field of pain management describe the technique, no sources from people who are not the article's author support the existence/common practice of the technique. Several of the claims are dubious or pseudoscientific, wikipedia seems to be a major outlet for the spread of the beliefs with no independent outlets. The main author of the page previously tagged each medical entry in neuropathic pain and created a host of other unreliable content with this dubious medical practice. The article describes original research and none has been removed over 9 years since the first objections raised about the page. PainProf (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is PROMO for one of its main editors Spicherc whose activities here and whose user page also seem inapproriate to Wikipedia policy. Spicher has created an article about a therapy he developed and named but MEDRS have no information about it. A search of PubMed for somatosensory Spicher turns up 6 papers, 5 of them co-authored by Spicher. The sixth paper Nedelec et al. 2016 describes using the method for an uncontrolled study of 17 burn survivors. Where are the independent secondary or tertiary sources that WP:MEDRS requires? The Nature Reviews Disease Primers (2017) survey article on treatment of neuropathic pain does not mention this technique or cite Claude Spicher. This topic has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Wikipedia should not be promoting this theory. Pinging Anthonyhcole and Materialscientist who have also tried to improve the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing a wall of text with "keep" arguments by Spicherc. Sandstein 11:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Peer-reviewed open-access Official e-Journal of the Somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain Network

Peer-reviewed open-access Official e-Journal of the Somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain Network http://www.neuropain.ch/research/e-news The somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain Network is a non-profit association.

The 64 issues of the past 17 years were written by some of the best experts in the world about neuropathic pain:

Bulleted list item

Prof Bernadette NEDELEC, PhD, McGill University, Montreal, (Qc), Canada School of Physical and Occupational Therapy

Bulleted list item

Prof David LE BRETON, Professeur de sociologie à l’université de Strasbourg. Membre de l’Institut Universitaire de France et de l’Institut des études avancées de l’Université de Strasbourg (USIAS : University of Strasbourg Institute for Advanced Studies)

Bulleted list item

Prof Joseph-Omer DYER,PhD, pht, University of Montreal, Montreal, (Qc), Canada Faculty of Medicine, Rehabilitation School, Physiotherapy Program,

Bulleted list item

Alpert Prof Marshall Devor, PhD, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel) Professor & Chair Department of Cell & Animal Biology, etc.

This e-Journal is on the website of the University of Fribourg (Switzerland) http://blog.unifr.ch/e-NewsSomatosensoryRehabilitation/

Since 2012, this is a peer-reviewd e-Journal with an international editorial board.

It is written in English and in 29 others foreign languages.

This is neither an advertisement nor a promotion. Spicherc (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the article's talk page now has quite a few keep !votes. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This article is currently a work in progress. Many certified therapists of pain are trying to improve it at the moment so it can be clear and helpful for patients suffering from neuropathic pain while respecting the Wikipedia policy in the meantime.

You mention the lack of secondary sources. Here are two articles that could help you understand the method while respecting MEDRS. ^[1] ^[2]

CSTP.SB (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific review articles conducted by groups without COI are the secondary sources we need. The Bouchard article above is promotional material published by ENewsSomatosens, an online blog promoting the therapy whose editor in chief is Spicher. The Morier article describes one clinical group's success with the "Spicher method" which it describes as "internationally renowned," no doubt because Wikipedia has for more than a decade permitted this promotional article to exist, despite lack of scientific backing or even scrutiny for the method. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Medicine, surgery and rehabilitation are not hard science. In Europe, we are stil using the expression lega artis when we are describing the results of the clinical examination signs. In 1996, Sackett in the British Journal of Medicine (BMJ) from the University of Oxford proposed the evidence-based medicine. In 2020, a concensus consider this scale as the best manner to assess the quality of a treatment. To treat Complex regional pain syndrome's patients, the use of somatosensory rehabilitation of pain got a level 2c of evidence (Packham et al., J Hand Ther 2018). This study in clinical practice (Cohen's index = 1.64) was a part of her PhD Thesis https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/20621/2/packham_tara_l_201609_PhD.pdf. The director of this thesis was Prof Joy McDermid https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joy_Macdermid. She is as well the Editor-in-Chief ot the journal of the American society for Hand Therapy https://www.jhandtherapy.org/ Motor imagery is another program to treat this patient. Quintal, I., Poiré-Hamel, L., Bourbonnais, D., & Dyer, J.-O. (2018). Management of long-term complex regional pain syndrome with allodynia: A case report. Journal of Hand Therapy, 31(2), 255-264. doi:10.1016/j.jht.2018.01.012 proposed a treatment with both of them Spicherc (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to point out that the consensus is that 2c refers to the level of evidence that can be obtained from the study, it does not mean the study is high quality. Secondly, 2c refers to one the study itself not the therapy, it does not mean that this therapy now has strong evidence it means you have a chart review and case studies. Regardless it is a primary source. Therefore claims should not be made about efficacy in the article. Realistically, there is little-no evidence of the efficacy of this method. Finally, it appears the author misinterpreted the scale, there is no control group in the study, so the study is an actual fact an uncontrolled case series, this would give level 4 evidence on a 5 point scale. Some of the comments on the article page have made me further realise the article as present is exceptionally problematic, one therapist said the article is important because it helps patients get in touch with people who can help. Either way the author has not demonstrated substantial coverage in sources that meet the strict definitions of medical sources on wikipedia, whilst it is possible that it will meet this standard in the future, it doesn't at present because the sources don't exist. If there is substantial coverage by many unrelated authors either negatively or positively this could merit an article. PainProf (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAKENEWS PainProf, how can you, alone, pretend to know better the evidence-based medicine than, all of these experts of this topic: Prof Joy McDermid, PhD, PT (McMaster University - Canada), Susan Michlovitz, PhD, PT, Norman Buckley, MD FRCP (Mickael DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care – Canada), Prof Tara Packham, PhD, OT (McMaster University) and the anonymous reviewers of the Journal of Hand Therapy and Eve Chaput, pht, MClSc (Manipulative Physiotherapy), FCAMPT, BSc (Physiotherapy), BSc (Speech-therapy), lecture (University of Montreal - Canada), Prof Joseph Omer Dyer, PhD, PT (University of Montreal), Prof Sibele de Andrade Mel Knaut (Phd, PT (UNICENTRO, Brazil), Giorgio Pietramaggiori, MD, PhD (Universities of Lausanne – Switzerland - and Padova - Italy) and the anonymous reviewers of e-News Somatosens Rehab and the scientific comittees and the whole participants of several congresses (Paris, Montpellier, Osaka), where these informations have been communicated without any controverse. Conclusion: Level of evidence-based practice to treat CRPS's patients: 2c Spicherc (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One PhD thesis whose dedication fulsomely thanks Spicher as "Thank you to Claude Spicher, teacher and trailblazer" is not evidence of independent third-party scrutiny of this medical treatment. Neither is the existence of a website run by Claude Spicher and devoted to articles that praise and promote his method. Let me also point to the userpage of Claude Spicher which promotes him and his therapy and then says "I report no conflict of interest." HouseOfChange (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations HouseOfChange You have made more than 4,000 contributions to Wikipedia. However, I am not sure that this honorably gold medals gives you the autorization to accuse me of a conflict of interest. I assume my ressponsabilities. our daily activities in clinical practice with neuropathic patients are registered in a data base with the autorization of the Swiss Association of Research Ethics Committees https://swissethics.ch

Our community of pratice proposes informations to neuropathic patients who have much difficulties to survive - thir life have no colour anymore. Their first complain: restless nights for ages: months, years, even decades. I am an occupational therapist and in Switzerland, in the Netherlands, in Canada, in our rehabilitation field, we have the ability to choose the best NON-pharmacological treatment which corresponds the best to the patient and its values. We are NOT promoting this physical treatment. We are giving them the opportunity to interrupt their neuropathic pain. This method is NOT the Spicher's method at all. We are trying to build bridges between rehabilitation, medicine and neurosciences. For this reason some of my 54 co-authors are occupationnal therapists, physiotherapists, Medical Doctors (neurologists, surgeons, pain doctors, etc.), anatomists, neuroscientists, anthropologists, and so on. https://unifr.academia.edu/ClaudeJSPICHER Spicherc (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Claude, it is best to to avoid ad hominem statements in general, I try my best to avoid them in all debates. I think HouseOfChange's point is that it could be perceived that you have a conflict of interest if you don't mind I cite here the ICMJE guidelines which I feel are fair in general. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/author-responsibilities--conflicts-of-interest.html. I understand this might not be wikipedia's policy but I believe they are functionally similar, but I hope you understand that running/owning/operating a clinic, receiving book royalties or charging fees for the training of this technique can be perceived as a conflict of interest. I do notice that some of the links in the bibliography are to amazon pages. People could argue that this is an attempt to sell books on the topic, I do not know the specifics of your deal with the publisher, but it could be perceived that a motivation for the page is to sell these books. Similarly, linking to your own websites which have details for yourself, your training, etc could be perceived to have a financial motive to funnel patients to certain therapists or to advertise training. As you have published books, and a blog, and own/operate a clinic/training courses, there is a financial incentive for you. I would recommend you declare this as a conflict of interest, noting that this doesn't preclude you from editing, but should be allowed to be taken into account by other editors. Similarly, it is an important factor in this deletion discussion. I would similarly ask any editor who has received speaking fees, royalties or grants from the pharmaceutical industry to declare this so I do think it is a fair and collegial request. Cheers PainProf (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fair and collegial

You are too funny anonymous Professor-post-doctoral-in-philosophy-fellow, Dear fe·male, gosh, YOU are asking me to be “fair and collegial”? you are making me laugh.

Boris Cyrulnik one of the most clever and alive man in the world wrote that: “a numeric relationship is impossible.”

The only one thing that you know about you is that you dislike the “foreign languages” and that you are a native English speaker. Are you a professor of philosophy from the Wales, are you a Scottish postdoctoral fellow in biomedicine, are you an unemployed person who never published any article apart from her·his thesis? No idea.

What we know is that, since May 20, you are trying to destroy a work of hundreds engaged clinicians. Why? What is your motivation? No idea. What our community of practice knows is that business is NOT the only value in the world. Do YOU really want to talk about money on wikipedia? Do you know that in Europe, especially in Switzerland, it would be considered very rude? In Europe, perhaps NOT in Australia, to swear the hand on the Bible, would be an unappropriate manner to say that: “I declare no conflict of interest”? However, I do it. I am working in several different Universities, and fortunately, I exactly know what a conflict of interest is. Dear anonymous Professor-post-doctoral-in-philosophy-fellow from New-Zealand, may I tell you, that in Europe, to publish in French a book cost a lots of money? Between the 3rd and the 4th edition of Somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain in French, 40 members of our community worked very hard during five years. Some of us waked up at 5 a.m. some others went to bed after midnight. And, could you believe that, Dear anonymous Professor-post-doctoral-in-philosophy-fellow from British Columbia, they didn’t receive any dollars for this job. Nothing. What is their motivation? To decrease pain of the patients, that they are, anyway, obliged to welcome with attention, hours after hours, as clinician. These patients who are fighting NOT to suicide because they are not sleeping anymore for 10, 100, or even more than 1000 restless nights.

As I started with him, I will conclude, as well, with Boris Cyrulnik – who published about 30 books in a foreign language: “It is hard to say ‘no’ when one opposes a greater number. It is also critical as one finds himself in the role of the offender. By saying that the Earth is round, whilst we clearly see it is flat, we stand as a deviant, almost abnormal. The statement is considered profane if the inference conflicts with the Literature. He who could think such a thing should be burnt at the stake.” (Cyrulnik, 2016) קלוד ספישר~ Spicherc (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Claude, I think per WP policy remaining anonymous is not a problem. I disagree with the characterisation that I dislike foreign languages, I kindly ask that you withdraw that statement. I prefer not to make personal attacks, my comment is perhaps unclear and taken in the wrong way, I think there is a perception of a conflict of interest, sometimes this can be as important as a conflict of interest. Much in the same way a perception of underlying tissue damage can be just as important as underlying tissue damage. I in no way mean to say that you are not doing what you think is right, and indeed you might be helping lots of people, but we need the evidence. My personal belief is that even spending sufficient time with a patient, fully understanding their concerns can help, and even placebo treatment can be very powerful in relieving pain and we know that a treatment administered in the context of a therapist where there is really active involvement such as in acupuncture can be more effective than a placebo pill (but just as affective as sham acupuncture), this is really why I'm trying to push for the evidence here. And, I hope that however this goes, you are encouraged to find clinical collaborators to pursue independent RCT, comparing your treatment to a sham. Regardless, this is off topic and not a useful line of discussion, the most important thing for the article is to find independent sources and reviews. Here is what I have found for you for citations so far:

https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?search_text=claude spicher&search_type=kws&search_field=full_search&and_facet_researcher=ur.014153021553.44&order=times_cited

I believe this only accounts for pubmed/medline. Could you please point us to more independent sources that cite your work.

Cheers,

PainProf (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It can't be brought up to the standard of WP:MEDRS, and so it shouldn't exist. XOR'easter (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, it's better not to have an article than to host promotional and scientifically unproven junk on wikipedia. b uidhe 16:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely delete, WP is not the place for legitimizing a pain management method that has not been independently scrutinized by multiple recognized research bodies. A treatment whose claims for efficacy rely at all on curated patient testimonies is already dubious; if the method worked, it would be supported by positive (deidentified) patient treatment outcomes assessed through objective, pre-defined measures. These would ideally be demonstrated through RCTs conducted by disinterested researchers. I am not seeing evidence of this for SRP, and the fact that the primary means of reporting case studies is a self-published WordPress blog pretending to be an academic journal speaks volumes against its legitimacy. JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is here to document what is considered significant by independent sources, not to establish the purported legitimacy of things that people want to be consaidered signficant. Guy (help!) 11:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hole Patrol

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

Non-notable EP. No evidence of charting, awards or in depth coverage in independent sources. PROD'd and deleted >3 years ago, but recreated. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, poorly sourced. --Lockley (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Steel Panther: A number of articles have mentioned the EP. There's an article where part of it discusses the EP, but that's not good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. That said, it's best to talk about it under the target article's segment Metal Shop / Metal Skool. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 10:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon & Garfunkel: The Complete Albums Collection

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

I PROD'd this three years ago. The PROD was removed but there are still no references nor claim of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NEXIST. Rather than PROD'ing stuff and de-prodding stuff, looking for references discussing this collection would have been advisable, because, predictably for such a famous duo, there are loads of substantial reviews of this in reliable sources. See e.g., 1 2 3 4. Sources exist, there is no deadline for adding them. FOARP (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are reviews on AllMusic [24]] and in Record Collector magazine [25] as well. Richard3120 (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: it's worth mentioning that many of those references appear to only mention the collection in passing, spending most of their time on the albums and songs, which are more than adequately covered in their respective articles (and all of them have respective artciles). Stuartyeates (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Err.... how do you describe a collection without talking about the albums and the songs in it? The reviews are explicitly reviewing the collection though, as they discuss the remastered sound etc. FOARP (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable list from a notable duo. Lightburst (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NEXIST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K. S. Narayanacharya

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

Non-notable person. Fails WP:GNG. - MRRaja001 (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. MRRaja001 (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable philosopher with multiple awards. This old version of the article is more complete. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Eastmain: Did you see the references of the content in this old version. None of them are correct and most of them are useless links. - MRRaja001 (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing about this teacher is notable. None of the prizes he won are noteworthy either. Also, some of the sources are quite unreliable, so I will say delete for that too. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 16:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable person. Awards are not notable ~ Amkgp 💬 14:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Jha Vines

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

Article asserts significance, so not probably not A7 and I don't feel tagging it as G3. However, this individual does not meet GNG. The article makes some claims regarding Tech Guruji, however that is run by a different individual: Gaurav Chaudhary. I think User:Tech Guruji's username is of concern here, and the article was rejected a couple of times at AfC.Eostrix (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing indicates notability. Could qualify for speedy deletion under WP:G11 as it's an WP:AUTOBIO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 10:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grigoriopol transmitter

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

Absence of sufficient citations. Therefore WP:DEL#7. Also possible WP:DEL#8 Nightvour (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maiac: It's best to discuss the contents there. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 22:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the absence of sufficient citations in this case is more indicative of a lack of effort than a lack of notability. After searching on Google books, I found a few sources talking about the station. It seems to be renowned for its immense range. If anything, Maiac seems to be less notable than the transmitter that lies near it. Mysteryman blue 23:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Changed my vote, per Mysterymanblue. I believe the article needs a little clean-up. Sources can be picked from the search result indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Aurobindo School of Integral Education, Chandigarh

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

Over the top promotional article of a private school. Needs to make WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, and it doesn't. This businesses activity as a school really has no bearing on its notability. It doesn't even meet the qualifications of what little remains of any presumption of notability schools once had. John from Idegon (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet ORG and fails GNG for sure. Drat8sub (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a school it's not notable. I think the same applies to Sri Aurobindo International School, Hyderabad. I wouldn't be averse to a very brief mention (one line, one citation, if any suitable source can be found - the article doesn't help) of both schools at Sri Aurobindo Ashram but really there's nothing to merge. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn - ProQuest sources found by Nfitz put it over GNG easily. Thanks, I don't have ProQuest access so wouldn't have been able to find those. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schleese Saddlery

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

I did a reasonably thorough (IMO), including Newspapers.com, and came up with only one source that meets WP:CORPDEPTH: This one, from Canadian Business. The other three that are mentioned on the talk page are not suitable. The one from American Horse Publications is bylined to the company, the one from Horse Journals is a short fluff post about a new saddle that reads like a press release and lacks a byline, and the EDC "is a Crown corporation dedicated to helping Canadian companies of all sizes succeed on the world stage," so it isn't independent when making blog posts about its own clients. I found nothing else on a search that meets CORPDEPTH (particularly keeping in mind WP:AUD, which requires topics to have garnered attention in general-audience media, not solely niche and/or trade publications). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - a quick look in ProQuest yields all sorts of hits, over a very extended period of time. There's a very extended piece in the April/May 2003 issue of Profit (magazine). There's a long article in the September 13, 1993 Toronto Star on the front of the Business section (Page C1) with a large photo of the Sabines in it, continued to Page C6. There seems to be an extended piece in the November 1988 Moneywise magazine in the Financial Post, although I can't get the text. In the June 13, 1991 Toronto Star is an extensive piece about Jochen Schleese, which would count to his notability as an equestrian, and does discuss his saddlery business. And then there's a lot of other stuff, such as a November 2001 mention in Chatelaine, and a short piece in the May 12 1997 Globe and Mail on page B5. There's no doubt that the article needs improving, but there's no doubt that GNG is made - and I didn't find the 2014 Canadian Business article you found - which makes four very good sources, probably five with the Financial Post article. Newspapers.com is very foreign - it doesn't seem to cover most papers and magazines. Could User:Premeditated Chaos review this AFD further, and consider withdrawing it? Nfitz (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better Brain Health

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

No evidence of notability: only sources are a primary source from the producers and then reports on the experiments documented (rather than the film), many of which are just the primary reports. The only content is a summary of things that the film discusses, which does not support notability. Kingsif (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll copy over my comment from the WikiProject Medicine discussion: Refbombed with unrelated sources, can't find any RS coverage on this, probably needs AFD. Produced by Deutsche Welle - maybe there's a German version that might have sources? Wasn't able to find one with a quick search though. Spicy (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cannot locate reliably sourced coverage, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Victory Day Parades in Minsk. Sandstein 18:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Minsk Victory Day Parade

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

Wikipedia is not news and this parade seems to have no long-term impact. There is no indication that this event will have a lasting effect. There is some coverage of Belarus flaunting coronavirus guidelines by holding the parade in sources like the BBC, but to merit a stand-alone article it would need to be demonstrated that the parade had a long term impact or was in some way far more notable than a routine parade, which is not established in the article or in any sourcing I could find. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this AFD raises a valid larger issue of whether pages should be created for all these Victory Day Parades when there seems to be little inherently notable about most of them. I understand having pages for years when major new weapons systems were revealed or where there was some wider historic or international context, but otherwise I don't see their notability despite whatever brief SIGCOV they may achieve in RS. For example: Moscow Victory Day Parade#List of parades Mztourist (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An alternative to deletion that might be considered is merging all the Minsk Victory Day Parade articles into List of Victory Day Parades in Minsk Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Victory Day Parades in Minsk per Eddie. Long term impact doubtful. b uidhe 10:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merrills Landing, California

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

Places called "landings" in GNIS are almost never notable, and this isn't an exception. The oldest topo maps put the label on the opposite site of the river; more recent maps move the label to the east, next to a pair of (apparently no longer there) buildings on the river bank. Then the river moved, and now there is a "Merrill's Landing Wildlife Area" encompassing the area between the river and its old bed. But there isn't a town, and from what I can tell, there never was one. Mangoe (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing about this place looks notable to me and so far editors have barely found anything to write about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janitor Joseph (talk • contribs) 16:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable locale. --Lockley (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding anything to indicate this was ever notable. Glendoremus (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawing my nomination, I believe sources have now been found. (non-admin closure) Sam-2727 (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Midnight Chase

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

This doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. There isn't any indication that it received any award or was on a chart, and the only "review" I can find is this which doesn't seem like a reliable source anyway. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The artist or band has a page and it seems it would be better to send people there as is the case with a lot of these albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janitor Joseph (talk • contribs) 16:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found a few reliable sources which talk about the abum: [26], [27], [28], [29] and [30]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. My vote stands. I won't reply any further. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 10:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ICity

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

Potentially non notable building, sources are potentially a bit sketchy regarding the name of the skyscrapers, previously deleted page, failing to see what is notable about the skyscrapers.   Kadzi   (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Kadzi: So why, for instance, these stub articles about German stations Dresden-Pieschen and Dresden Bischofsplatz by a no name architect are notable without any independent sources and iCity skyscraper in Moscow by famous German architect Helmut Jahn at the cost of 350 million US bucks is not notable?--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

because I didn’t write those articles and have begun a discussion here on this one; to which other members of Wikipedia will add to until a conclusion is reached. Thank you.   Kadzi   (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Kadzi: You didn't say why a skyscraper by a famous German architect is not notable. Thank you.--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant as to whether they're notable or not in the context of this discussion,@Александр Мотин:, if you feel they are not notable feel free to start a deletion discussion around them, otherwise you're just employing WP:WHATABOUTX.

Weak keep – there's an ok amount of coverage in Russian-language sources such as TASS, although a lot of it cleaves a bit too close to just quoting press releases published elsewhere. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. ~~Merging content to Moscow International Business Center, where the towers are located, is another option.~~ _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a part of MIBC.--Александр Мотин (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah my mistake, I see now that it says that it will be situated across from the MIBC. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 10:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Strategic Humour Initiative

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

Article about a transnational one-off television special, not properly referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW. The footnotes here are one participant's own self-published filmography on her own website, the self-published website of its own production company and an IMDb profile of a different show only tangentially related to this one -- but the notability test for TV shows hinges not on verification of existence, but on verification that it got media attention from journalists, and there's none of that being shown here at all. Further, the article completely fails to mention a critically important detail that any article about a TV show always needs to mention: when did it air? Even with stars involved, the show still needs to have better sources than this before it can be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It wasn't hard to find news sources reporting on the special. I added info from two Associated Press articles (one for US and one for Canada), and from The Daily Telegraph in the UK, with airdates from all three countries. There's more information in those reports, for anyone who wants to follow those links and expand the article further. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Considering that all of the arguments are flatly WP:AADD (i.e. WP:ITSNOTABLE) I don't think it's worthwile continuing a discussion which as yielded no new comments in 2 weeks. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IndexMaster

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

Not notable. Wikieditor600 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject was non-notable back in 2007 when they were still opearting: considering they're now super-turbo-ultra defunct... -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Scott Edell

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Lots of names and passing mentions in relation to companies, but very little specific to the person. Fails WP:THREE. No secondary sources. scope_creep^Talk 21:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added four more reliable sources (Hollywood Reporter, IndieWire, Deadline and Venture Count Star) - this should meet the requirements for WP:THREE --DaJerm (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They seem to be appointments notices are very low quality references, not the WP:SECONDARY sources that are needed notability. I don't see any grouping of references that prove WP:BIO merely a bunch of paid advertising, mentions in relation to company and promotion/branding. scope_creep^Talk 14:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have 5 reference that are all same notice. There is a single decent source amongst the lot of them. scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ars (film)

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

~~Non notable film with nothing to support it having its own article. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Books referenced below establish notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ther's plenty of coverage in this book published by the Manchester University Press and, although Google Books only displays snippets, it looks like there's significant coverage in these books. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article subject is notable. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arcane Legends

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

Poorly formatted, with description focused primarily on the game at the expense of the rest of the article. SuperUserCode (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SuperUserCode (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though I think WP:TNT applied here and should have been WP:G11 deleted, as the article was completely promotional at that point [31]. I found few sources where it was covered beyond trivial or routine mentions in WP:VG/RS and some sources with Wiki articles, like Pocket Gamer [32], Engadget [33], Slide to Play [34], Gamezebo [35] , Forbes [36] (while written by a contributor, the reviewer is now an editor at Game Informer, which adds to reliability), a paragraph in Svet Kompjutera [37], Tech in Asia [38]. There would need to be some discussion about Modojo, but since its owned by the same network as Shacknews that is deemed reliable at WP:VG/RS, I'd consider it reliable as well [39]. It passes WP:GNG overall. I wouldn't oppose a WP:TNT deletion, since there is nothing here to salvage right now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick search led to four in-depth reviews from reliable sources (which I have added to the article). SIGCOV in RS'es is the GNG benchmark against which article subjects are assessed and this one passes English Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond McLeod

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

PROD removed. PROD reason was No independent reliable resources, Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – right now this is literally a WP:BLPPROD situation. But even aside from that, subject does not appear to come anywhere close to meeting WP:NACTOR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources except for IMDB, which is not a reliable source per WP:CITEIMDB. Koridas ^talk? 06:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As i already tagged it as PROD. Not independent reliable resources, Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. DMySon 02:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gayle Lloyd

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

Fails WP:NBADMINTON. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234: Jersey? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there's no regional sorting category for Guernsey. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Athletes competing in Commonwealth Games passes WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG right? I agree she hasn't featured in BWF or other international badminton events. Abishe (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abishe: I think the nomination is because the criteria that mentions the Commonwealth Games requires them to have 'competed in the quarter-finals' Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine first criteria too look at is the sport the athlete competes in, which is badminton. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is what I meant, the #2 criteria of WP:NBADMINTON. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for badminton players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meeting GNG: has a BBC article, see here. Is named in many other news articles. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportsOlympic: being 'named' in an article isn't enough to satisfy GNG, there needs to be significant coverage. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but if you could have seen, the BBC article is not only “named”. It’s an article about her, including title, of the main news media of the UK. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportsOlympic: WP:INDEPTH says the coverage must include "analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines". The BBC article just reports the results of her two matches, with no such analysis. Neither is it WP:SECONDARY coverage - it doesn't tell us what the writer thought about per performance in the matches, there's no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts. See WP:SIGCOV. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A better way to phrase it is it's WP:ROUTINE. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the discussion of the WP:NBADMINTON criteria at the WikiProject Badminton they have a well established and well argued basis for their notability criteria based on an assessment of different levels of international tournament by their international body. This player clearly falls short of those criteria. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Reed (Star Trek)

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

This remains mostly in universe - the kind of thing I would love to be at Memory Alpha but not what we demand of the articles for our fictional characters. I do not believe that there is enough of the right kind of coverage in sources to suggest notability. The coverage that includes Reed is instead things like lists of characters or general coverage of Star Trek Enterprise. There is no doubt we should have coverage of Reed in Wikipedia just not as a stand alone article. This should, instead, be a redirect. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, going after primary cast of a Star Trek show? Dramu is incoming. The article is in a very bad shape, through this is not an issue at AfD. The current references are garbage (in passing/PLOT). Nonetheless despite what some may think, I am not out there pinning for every fiction article to be deleted, and Star Trek does tend to be written about. Here's what I found: 1) Duncan Barrett; Michèle Barrett (5 August 2016). Star Trek: The Human Frontier. Routledge. pp. 236–. ISBN 978-1-315-51648-6.: one paragraph about the character's sexuality 2) [40] low-tier academic article with a sentence of analysis 3) that's it as far as scholarly analysis go. I was hoping to find something to save it, but I could not. I expect of course we will get the usual link farm of plot summaries from news, blogs and like; maybe there will be few hidden gems, enough to rescue this - ping me and I'll review sources presented when that happens. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I compared the sources for this to characters for TNG and DS9 and, on the whole, found much better footing for those characters. Unsurprising given the popularity/longevity of those series compared to Enterprise. This analysis matches the sort of coverage you found of him in a book on Star Trek. I'm guessing that lots of sources will be brought to bare. I look forward to being shown notability and proven wrong. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable fictional character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because there's more than the secondary sources already mentioned by User:Piotrus. The twilight of identity: Enterprise, neoconservatism, and the death of Star Trek also comments on the character's sexuality. Gender and Sexuality in Star Trek: Allegories of Desire in the Television Series and Films describes and comments on a scene involving the same topic on p. 45 and comments on the character as a whole on p. 123. Using Superheroes in Counseling and Play Therapy gives a one-sentence-characterization on p. 248. Star Trek: A Cultural History on p. 32 briefly describes his development. That's what I have found within limited time. Then there's the online articles already present in the article. And a great many more secondary sources that give plot-summary information. So even if none of these sources is extremely long, taken together this should meet WP:GNG. Daranios (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this character fails GNG per Piotrus. The sources brought up by Daranios is insufficient per his own admission, “Let’s just add all the passing mentions together” is not how SIGCOV works. Imagine if we did that for articles on companies. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The character has passing mentions in many secondary sources. The ones I have chosen, however, all have some analysis/evaluation within them, so they are not passing mentions. "insufficient per his own admission" is a misrepresentation of what I wrote. If SIGCOV does work differently than I think, please point me to where it says "significant coverage has to be within one source, other sources have to be discounted". Image how much smaller and poorer Wikipedia would be if we did that overall. Daranios (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence long analysis is the very definition of a passing mention. You cannot combine passing mentions from different sources to make “full” sources, that’s not how SIGCOV works. Also, SIGCOV is at least a paragraph of coverage, and in reality is almost always more than that. You have consistently misrepresented sentence-long coverage as significant. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) If a source contains analysis, that's not trivial, no matter the length.

2) Some of the eight sources found so far have only one sentence, some have more.

3) You tell me that that's not how SIGCOV works. Please show me in the guidelines, so that I know that that's indeed what the community has decided, and not your interpretation of it. Daranios (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an actual definition of a passing mention, and that's not it. WP:GNG says, "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." That's not one sentence of analysis, it's mentioning that something exists while you're talking about something else. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST: I've found another brief discussion of the character in a newspaper article, "'Star' power" by Bridget Byrne, Associated Press (Sept 2001), saying that the actor is uncomfortable playing "the gunman" in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I do think that many sources with a small bit of information about character development and analysis each can be used to assemble a worthwhile article and demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As mentioned several times above, there is a lot of passing mentions of the character, but no real significant coverage in reliable sources that actually demonstrates independent notability. Being a major character in a notable show is not automatically a guarantee of independent notability without significant coverage in reliable sources, which Malcolm does not have. I was initially going to suggest that it should be used as a Redirect to either Star Trek: Enterprise or List of Star Trek characters, but I think Malcolm Reed (character) would be the more proper name for a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anyone can create a redirect as a normal editing action if so desired. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul M. Kanitra

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

A non-notable mayor of a town with less than 5,000 people. No significant, reliable coverage or events has been found in a search. Tinton5 (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources in the article don't establish notability and I found no reliable and verifiable independent sources in a Google search to support such a claim. Alansohn (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable mayor with no reliable coverage. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey#Government, where he is mentioned. A non-notable mayor of a small city, sourced mainly to election results. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small town mayor with no real notability. The sources are mainly election results. LefcentrerightDiscuss 22:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.ScottHastie (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If he's mentioned at Point Pleasant Beach, I don't really mind a redirect, though I think delete may be a better result. SportingFlyer T·C 16:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smalltown mayors are not deemed "inherently" notable just because it's possible to offer technical verification that they exist — for any mayor, the notability test is the ability to write a substantive and well sourced article about his political significance, not just the ability to document the start and end dates of his term in office. Of the nine footnotes here, however, literally all nine of them are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and literally zero of them are notability-building reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above per WP:ATD and WP:RCHEAP. Delete votes do not offer any reasoning why a redirect would be negative for the encyclopedia. b uidhe 01:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Morier, A., Lallemant & A. Romeu, P. (2019). Practicing somatosensory rehabilitation of neuropathic pain. Douleurs : Évaluation - Diagnostic - Traitement, 4(20), 175-182. ISSN 1624-5687, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.douler.2019.07.009. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S162456871930109X)
^ Bouchard, S. (2020). Somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain explained to Medical Doctors. ENewsSomatosens, 1(63), 3–12. https://www.academia.edu/42788282/Somatosensory_Rehabilitation_of_Pain_explained_to_Medical_Doctors?source=swp_share

[1] Morier, A., Lallemant & A. Romeu, P. (2019). Practicing somatosensory rehabilitation of neuropathic pain. Douleurs : Évaluation - Diagnostic - Traitement, 4(20), 175-182. ISSN 1624-5687, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.douler.2019.07.009. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S162456871930109X)

[2] Bouchard, S. (2020). Somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain explained to Medical Doctors. ENewsSomatosens, 1(63), 3–12. https://www.academia.edu/42788282/Somatosensory_Rehabilitation_of_Pain_explained_to_Medical_Doctors?source=swp_share

[1]

[2]

HERE ARE MORE SECONDARY SOURCES ALL REPLUTABLE AND NOT BY HONEYCUTT:

HERE ARE MORE PRIMARY RESEARCH STUDIES NOT BY HONEYCUTT:

Related articles