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. Cabayi ( talk) 06:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Claudio Andrea Gemme (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This is not an encyclopedia article. Poor references, mostly primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. The subject of this article works organizations that do not have Wikipedia articles. P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 23:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 23:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 23:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 23:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable businessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete totally a non-notable -- Devokewater ( talk) 20:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to World War II German war crimes in the Soviet Union. (non-admin closure) BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 01:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

German war crimes during the Battle of Moscow (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:LISTN. The Nazis committed war crimes left and right in the USSR. There's no reason to single out the Battle of Moscow, especially since these incidents are relatively minor/small-scale, comparatively speaking. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Although it is not written encylopedically, this article should be kept. It does not matter that the Nazis committed more war crimes. P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 23:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Please see a similar article that was also nominated for deletion by me that was kept. P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 23:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 00:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 00:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge and redirect to World War II German war crimes in the Soviet Union as an alternative to deletion, I'm not convinced this merits a stand-alone article and as Clarityfiend mentions there's no indication singling out this battle is worthwhile or necessary. With that said, the content can be (perhaps trimmed) and merged into the parent article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge and redirect to World War II German war crimes in the Soviet Union per Eddie891. Far from convinced that there is sufficient material to warrant a stand-alone article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge doesn't justify its own page. Mztourist ( talk) 03:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge Though notable, I would still like to see it get merged per above. Kaweendra ( talk) 06:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• A better merge target would be Battle of Moscow; a separate section on war crimes could be added to that article. ( t · c) buidhe 08:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• I'd support a merge to that article as well, both seem like possible targets. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge per buidhe. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me)
• Merge. I agree, this does not need to stand by itself. The content might also fit into Battle of Moscow itself. Vici Vidi ( talk) 09:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Battle of Moscow per Buidhe. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 10:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge. As others have said, merge is the best option, possibly into Battle of Moscow and/or German war crimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by KB11001 ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• merge, article contains some good information and better be merged to Battle of Moscow. Alex-h ( talk) 09:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect to World War II German war crimes in the Soviet Union. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 04:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a rap musician, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no reliable sources. The strongest notability claim here is of the "got X number of views on an internet streaming platform" variety, which is no part of our notability criteria for musicians -- and across the board, the sources here are blogs, social media and streaming platforms, with not a single piece of real journalism in real media to support his notability. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and some legitimate sources to support it -- but right now, it's WP:TOOSOON. This is also a direct conflict of interest, if you compare the creator's username to the article subject's real name: see WP:AUTOBIO for why this is not acceptable. Bearcat ( talk) 23:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 23:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 23:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable rapper. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable -- Devokewater ( talk) 20:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Notability is not justified by the in-cite resources. Fails WP:NMUSIC. DMySon 05:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

Promotional article. Having no encyclopedic value. Fails WP:GNG/ WP:NCORP. Hatchens ( talk) 06:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 06:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. "Pramati Technologies Is Ready To Take On Goliath". InformationWeek. 2002-03-28. Retrieved 2020-06-21. {{ cite magazine}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= ( help)

     The article includes analysis from an analyst:

     In trying to break into the midmarket, Pramati will compete against some major high-tech companies, including Hewlett-Packard, which is giving away a basic version of its application server. "It's a small company that says they're going to compete on price, but how are you going to compete with IBM for example on price?" Illuminata analyst James Governor asks. "IBM could give it away until the cows come home." Pramati's success will depend on whether it can partner with large distributors and resellers and convince some major independent software vendors to bundle the application server with their products. In addition, Pramati's tools are going to have to be substantially easier to use, a challenge given the fact that J2EE is known as a difficult platform.

  2. Sangwan, Sujata (2017-06-07). "Pramati Technologies - Making Products and Delivering Services for Building the Agile Enterprise". Businessworld. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
  3. Taft, Darryl K. (2002-03-18). "An Alternative App Server". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
  4. Rapoza, Jim (2004-02-16). "Pramati Eases Web App Development". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
  5. Khare, Ankit (2003-04-03). "Pramati Server 3.0". PCQuest. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
  6. Khare, Ankit (2002-10-28). "Build Java Apps". PCQuest. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
  7. Harbaugh, Logan (2002-04-25). "Does Pramati Server Live Up to Its Name?". Serverwatch.com. QuinStreet. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
  8. Parthasarathy, Anand (2007-03-07). "Pramati Technologies 'marries' Web to desktop". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
  9. Gajjala, Venkataramana (2006). "The Role of Information and Communication Technologies in Enhancing Processes of Entrepreneurship and Globalization in Indian Software Companies". The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries. 26 (1). Wiley: 12–13. doi: 10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00170.x.

     The article has a section titled "Pramati Technologies".

     The article notes:

     Pramati Technologies Private Limited (PTPL), one of the Red Herring 100 Private Companies of Asia, headquartered in Hyderabad, India was incorporated in 1998 with seed capital from the likes of Citigroup and Intel Capital. PTPL is a global provider of Java software development technology (an end-to-end Enterprise Java platform vendor) with offices in New York, San Jose, Hong Kong, Singapore and London. After winning some key customers in India it aggressively marketed its products – the Pramati Server 4.1 (an application server) and the Pramati Studio 3.5 (component development lifecycle tools) – to global companies like CitiGroup, Ericsson, and Standard Chartered Bank and ended up winning by being price-competitive and by providing inexpensive support. According to the company, “Pramati Server is the right choice for small-to-medium businesses and independent software vendors, who need fully standards compliant application server platform that provides classic enterprise-class features, scalability and performance demonstrated through industry-standard benchmarks”^{11: http://www.pramati.com/index.jsp?id=corporate}

     The articles includes information from the founder.
  10. Shariff, Mohd (2007-04-16). "Software services: the next frontier". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2009-12-07. Retrieved 2009-12-07.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pramati Technologies to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 08:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Red Herring Awards are dubious in nature and being considered as paid. Sad Red Herring email is sad but if you want to buy entry to an Awards programme, here is the information you need - Hatchens ( talk) 12:27, 27 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 America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Robert Bourne (developer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't think there is enough coverage of this wealthy businessman to make him notable. WP:BEFORE only gave me one additional reference, to the 2009 Sunday Times rich list (the 2005 one is already referenced). Tacyarg ( talk) 22:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg ( talk) 22:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg ( talk) 22:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg ( talk) 22:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg ( talk) 22:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable businessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Jessie Ware. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 04:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Overtime (Jessie Ware song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I researched to try and make this article notable but there really isn't enough coverage to warrant an article. Though sources do exist, the coverage is extremely limited and repetitive: Rollingstone, Pitchfork, Stereogum, The Fader, DIY Mag, Undertheradar Mag, Consequence of Sound and V Magazine. What coverage there is is superficial and doesn't mention much beyond the single's release and credits/writers or quotes of lyrics. ≫ ( Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 22:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ ( Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 22:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Jessie Ware: It was mentioned in a number of articles, but was barely discussed. The only source I found about the song is the one from DIY Magazine. But, that's not enough for the article to pass WP:NSINGLE. ASTIG😎 _{( ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Redirect to What's Your Pleasure?. Consensus that this song fails NSONGS. ( non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat ( talk) 01:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Adore You (Jessie Ware song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

After coming across this article due to its tag, I tried to expand it but U don't think it meets WP:NSONGS. There isn't enough information to grow beyond a stub and many of the third party sources quote the same press release making coverage very sparse. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to What's Your Pleasure?: It was mentioned in a number of articles, but was barely discussed. ASTIG😎 _{( ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to What's Your Pleasure?. Consensus to redirect until stronger GNG arises (non-admin closure) Britishfinance ( talk) 00:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Mirage (Don't Stop) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NSONGS, this song hasn't charted, or received enough third party coverage to ascertain notability. There are some limited mentions in the following sources NME, Stereogum, Clashmusic and Undertheradar Mag ≫ ( Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 22:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ ( Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 22:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to What's Your Pleasure?: It was mentioned in a number of articles, but was barely discussed. ASTIG😎 _{( ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per user above. It's the same information over and over again. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 23:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The Irish American Arts Awards (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A full page for a one off award that never was awarded with one dead link as a source? Hesperian Nguyen ( talk) 20:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Hesperian Nguyen ( talk) 20:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• delete cannot find any sourcing. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 21:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete seems not notable. TheImaCow ( talk) 11:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - There is nothing to substantiate that this is or was notable. Notability is not inherited from the artists that were nominated (and as stated in nom, the award was never even given). Netherzone ( talk) 13:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, Per above, not a notable subect. Alex-h ( talk) 09:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep or more precisely there is a consensus not to delete. There is no consensus as between keeping as-is and redirecting to Cosmic entity (DC Comics). That does not need to be decided at AFD; it may be taken up further on the article talk page. Stifle ( talk) 11:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

List of cosmic entities in DC Comics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

What makes this list of fictional characters pass WP:NFICTION/ WP:LISTN? It seems unreferenced outside links two to primary sources (comics), too. WP:FANCRUFT/ WP:OR red flags. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Passes WP:LISTN. For example, see Ranking The 15 Most Powerful DC Cosmic Characters; 15 Most Powerful DC Beings, Ranked From Weakest To Strongest; 10 Most Powerful Cosmic Entities In DC Comics. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I think the subject passes LISTN, but I'm not convinced they current article is in anyway useful. At minimum, it should be limited to blue links only. At best, it would be expanded from bulleted names to a table providing actual information about the characters. I don't think it rises to WP:TNT, but I can't bring myself to call it a KEEP, either. Argento Surfer ( talk) 12:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete- poorly sourced, and no real evidence of meeting WP:LISTN. Nor is it a useful navigational aid. Reyk _YO! 17:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep as navigational list per WP:LISTPURP, and WP:CLN as complement to Category:DC Comics cosmic entities, which has over 100 entries. postdlf ( talk) 23:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• KEEP Perfectly valid list article, aids in navigation, links to articles with a notable thing connecting them as proven by reliable sources found. Dream Focus 00:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Cosmic entity (DC Comics). The current list needs massive culling. Not only should all of the non-notable, non-blue linked entries be removed, but many of the actual blue-linked entries should be as well, as they are characters that are not "cosmic entities", have never been described as such in the comics, and their inclusion here is pure WP:OR. In addition, many of the blue linked entries are not linking to pages to actual comic characters, as the DC versions are not at all notable, but to the articles on the actual mythological beings they were based on, whose articles do not talk about the DC versions at all. Once that has been done, the list will not be long enough that it would need to be split off from the main article. The main article is already functionally the same as this list is anyway - a small blurb explaining what a "cosmic entity" is, and then a large list of random characters. There is no reason to have basically the same thing spread across two articles. Any actual notable, blue-linked entries that are currently on this list, and not the other, can be easily moved over. Rorshacma ( talk) 14:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per Rorshacma, essentially redundant to the main article. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  EDIT: I've cleaned up the main article, I think. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep looks to be a perfectly valid and useful list article. Artw ( talk) 17:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Per User:LaundryPizza03 and User:Rorshacma and their comments and cleanup of the article, this now seems to be a fork of Cosmic entity (DC Comics). At the very least, we don't need two articles that are effectively lists. Anyone who votes keep should at least consider a merge vote instead. Ping User:Andrew Davidson , User:Artw, User:Postdlf , User:Dream Focus. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  The main article does not have most of what is listed here. So its a valid list article, no reason to eliminate it, wouldn't all fit properly over there. Dream Focus 02:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  Most of what's listed here are non-blue linked entries with no context, no explanation, and no sources, or blue linked entries that actually link to articles that don't even mention DC comics, also with no context, explanation or sources. None of those should be even be in consideration for what would "fit" in a merger, as they should not be at either place. Rorshacma ( talk) 04:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep but trim the hell out of it. Looks like a LISTN pass, but non-notable entries should be culled. Probably best to rework it as only for notable entries. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• If we do that though, then there would literally be no difference between this and Cosmic entity (DC Comics). I honestly don't see why this topic needs to be repeated in two different article spaces, if you agree that this should be reduced to only the notable entries, which is exactly what the main article already contains. Rorshacma ( talk) 00:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:LISTN aides in navigation and provides information for our readers Lightburst ( talk) 19:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Cosmic entity (DC Comics). There's already a list of notable entries there.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 17:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Cosmic entity (DC Comics), as noted above that's where the notable ones are already listed; this is an unnecessary content fork. Sandstein 16:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep While I am not unsympathetic to the content fork point of view Cosmic entity, in a better developed form, should have far more prose than it does today. On the other hand the list would remain a list and has value as a navigational aid. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Robbers Creek, California (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

As far as I can tell, this is a general locale based on the creek itself. The origin story is for the name of the creek, and while it is used as a place name for railroad incidents and the like I cannot find any evidence of any settlement, and on the topos it's just a name next to the tracks with no associated buildings or indeed any features at all. Mangoe ( talk) 18:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 17:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete Mass-produced junk perpetuating false information. Reywas92 ^Talk 19:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Rail siding miscategorized as a community. The "unusual place names" source is beyond useless, it's just a self-published list of names. – dlthewave ☎ 02:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, Not a notable place. Alex-h ( talk) 09:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was CSD'd by CaptainEek as an A3. (non-admin closure) ◊PRAHLAD ^balaji ( M•T•A• C) This message was left at 18:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I See Maths (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable film/short. Praxidicae ( talk) 17:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. ◊PRAHLAD ^balaji ( M•T•A• C) This message was left at 17:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Hong Kong Baptist University. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 04:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Centre for Sino-Christian Studies (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A research centre/department established by the Hong Kong Baptist University which does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. All of the sources cited are primary sources (the website of HKBU or the centre itself), with a directory-like passing mention at the HK government website, with no significant mentions anywhere else based on my search. Also note WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which provides that Faculties, departments [...] within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field. The "Major Publications" cited does not seem to qualify as "significant contributions in the field" of Sino-Christian studies. Dps04 ( talk) 03:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dps04 ( talk) 03:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Dps04 ( talk) 03:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Either Keep or Merge with Hong Kong Baptist University. A purview of current literature on Sino-Christian theology mention researchers sponsored by this Centre which is stated to be a parallel institution with the Centre for Applied Ethics, but having a different objective. The Centre sponsors research and organizes key international events in the field of Sino-Christian studies. So, I would suggest a strong keep decision to editors. If not Keep, it should deserve, at least, a Merge but not delete. Solatido 05:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Solatido, Thanks for the vote, and let me start off by thanking you for your contributions as the creator of the nominated article.

As a research department under a university, my understanding is that the article on the Centre for Sino-Christian Studies ("Centre") is subject to the relevant notability guidelines, especially WP:ORG (See WP:NSCHOOL for more information). Would you care to provide a list of multiple reliable secondary sources with significant mentions of the Centre to show the subject meets the relevant notability requirements? I would be inclined to think mere mentions of researchers sponsored by the Centre in the academic literature wouldn't count as significant mentions for the purpose of WP:ORG or WP:GNG.

Also, you mentioned that the Centre "sponsors research and organizes key international events in the field of Sino-Christian studies.". Could you please state clearly what are the events you consider to be of such huge importance such that the Centre has also inherited notability through organisation of these events?

Of course, I am open to a merge option, but this is premised on the assumption that someone would undertake the duties in selectively merging the contents of the article to the HKBU article. -- Dps04 ( talk) 16:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Dps04, Thanks for the encouragement on my wiki edit! A quick search on Google books for mention of the Centre returns results related to researchers connected with it that I regard to be one evidence of its notability in the area of Sino-Christian studies. As the institution is regarded as an independent body similar to the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies, but in the area of theological studies in Chinese context (e.g. Partner Institutions, York St. John University), I would think that it is notable in its own area of contribution. In case the majority here think that the centre itself doesn't deserve a page of its own, I would still believe that there should at least be a page on Sino-Christian study centres that would include reference to this centre and like institutions that are notable in the area of research. But, I would strongly suggest that this page deserves a Keep motion and "Sino-Christian Study Centres" or "Institutions" should rather be a category. Solatido 11:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I have listed some events in the article. I also have seen a number of institutions announcing an upcoming major international conference on Rapid Religious and Cultural Change. Solatido 12:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Solatido, Thanks for the input. Unless I am missing something, there were only 4 or 5 books which even mentioned the subject per your Google Booksearch, none of which contained a significant mention or description of the institution itself. Again, it would be helpful if u could cite reliable secondary sources mentioning or at least implying how the Centre was notable in the area of Sino-Christian Studies. But I'll defer to others to evaluate the sources out there. Regardless of the outcome, thank you for your contributions on the wiki to date :) -- Dps04 ( talk) 13:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge/redirect to Hong Kong Baptist University per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I searched for sources about "Centre for Sino-Christian Studies" and could not find significant coverage in independent reliable sources about the subject. I reviewed the sources in the article and did not find significant coverage about the subject. There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources about the Centre for Sino-Christian Studies to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard ( talk) 10:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW (six keeps with no dissent) and the likelihood that, with this starting point, continued discussion is more likely to focus on the nomination history than on the merits of the case. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

Pretty extensive article for a first-year grad student. Creator argues GNG, but I don't see it in the sources. The subject clearly has potential to become notable in the future, but looks like a case of too soon for a page at the moment. Take Note List ( talk) 17:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep The coverage of her surgery includes some substantial and ongoing reporting, which counts in her favor vis-a-vis the GNG, and she's been cited as a subject-matter expert more than passingly [1] [2] (in addition to the briefer appearances like [3] [4] [5]). XOR'easter ( talk) 17:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment and Keep Nominator has a grand total of 14 edits, 10 of which were made in the space of 12 minutes exactly 1 week ago, and two of which used ReFill. If nominator were commenting in this discussion, closing admin would be encouraged to discount their opinion due to bad faith. Meanwhile for the article: Nance has articles dedicated to her from Business Today (India) [6], Hindustan Times, [7], BBC News [8]. She gets asked for her opinion on stars by NPR [9] and National Geographic [10]. The General notability guideline: she meets it. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep - yet another nomination by a new editor of one of Jesswade88's articles. Created an account, made exactly enough edits to be autoconfirmed, waited a few days, and nominated it. Are we really going to permit harassment by nomination? If an experienced editor in good standing wants to renominate, so be it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I hadn't bothered to look at the nominator's edit history, but yes, that is concerning. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Well-referenced, looks like she meets WP:GNG to me. Tacyarg ( talk) 19:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep – Disclaimer, I made this page. I'm not sure who you are Take Note List, but please leave me alone! Focus on making Wikipedia better, not trying to take women's biographies down. Jesswade88 ( talk) 19:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  He/she *is* focusing on making WP better. How? By trying to take down a biography he/she considers unworthy. It's not about YOU. Hence your "leave me alone" epithet is unfounded and unnecessarily escalatory. 2600:1702:4380:5FA0:4C84:4B71:F2D8:A6C4 ( talk) 08:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep Clearly sufficient coverage to be notable. Does look like a bad faith nomination. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 19:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Madeline (former settlement), California (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This appears to be a mistake in scraping Durham for names, because Madeline, California still exists, and even has its own post office. I do not have access to Durham's text, but the rough geography matches up; the coords in the article, which are not sourced, give a random point in the middle of nowhere. The spot described in the ghosttowns.com listing is clearly the extant town. I can find no evidence that there were two Madelines in the county, so I have to think this one is a mistake. Mangoe ( talk) 17:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 17:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete There's no sign of anything at the unsourced coordinates given, and there doesn't appear to be a Madeline "62 miles North of Susanville" either. The most likely explanation is a duplicate that got mis-scraped somehow.

I don't have access to the Durham book for this area, but many of the entries in other editions are nothing more than "appears on X map, Y miles North of Z." If there was anything more than this, I like to think that the person who created the article would have included it. – dlthewave ☎ 02:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom just as simple matter of cleanup. -- Lockley ( talk) 08:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Day at the Fair (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete: the page appears to be a combination of fancruft and original research. There's no evidence that the band is notable. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 17:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: as per above and also it is quite unsourced which suggests it is not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeNorth ( talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not notable. No sources. No merge target. -- Lockley ( talk) 21:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• The last two votes should be ignored as it does have an existing reliable source; a staff written bio in AllMusic which the nominator did not bother to mention, and it seems the two voters did no more than glance at the article, Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, unsourced material, not notable Alex-h ( talk) 09:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Morning Sun Animation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

unless I am missing something, this doesn't appear to be a notable animation company. Searching in English and chinese ("朝阳动画") gives virtually nothing useful in terms of sourcing. Praxidicae ( talk) 16:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Clearly isn't notable. Especially if there isn't any sources in Chinese. Even if there was though I'd still lean on the delete side since it's the English Wiki and there should at least be a few sources in English to support the Chinese with IMO, but there isn't. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 09:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Full fail of NCORP and GNG in both languages. Edit history implies a PAID issue also. Britishfinance ( talk) 14:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, Fails WP:NCORP, lacks sources , Alex-h ( talk) 14:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Moving articles during an AfD discussion is disruptive for a reason and this AfD demonstrates what that is. Discussion is all over the place, some commenting on the notability (or not) of Urdudaan as an article, others discussing its utility as a redirect, and still others ignoring it altogether in favor of discussing the notability (or not) of Urdu speaking people (which just for fun appears to have also been at Urdu Speaking people). So there are lots of comments but on too many topics to form a consensus. No prejudice to a speedy (though I recommend perhaps not immediate) refiling that makes a deletion argument (e.g. POV Fork or Notability) about the current title. Following that if necessary Urdudaan as a redirect can be handled at WP:RFD. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

Title is not a widely used term in English but also is in not of much use in Urdu. It also fails to define the subjects it is trying to describe/mention/represent. Again, to mention the term doesn't passes WP:Verifiablity & WP:Notability tests. For details please see the talk-page of the article. Fz ^t c _s 16:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: the page has been moved in the meanwhile to Urdu speaking people – Austronesier ( talk) 08:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The term itself has zero prevalence in academic literature. Google scholar only yields two hits [11], and both are merely mentions of a blogger named Urdudaan. The term is also virtually non-existent in non-academic texts (only 80 Google search results [12]). The topic itself ("Urdudaan" meaning "Urdu-speaking people" as an ethnic group) does not meet WP:GNG, either. None of the sources given defines "Urdu-speaking people" as an ethnic group, and everyting that can be said about the speakers of the language should be covered in the language article itself, viz. Urdu, unless someone comes up with sources that actually back up the claim that "Urdu-speaking people" are an ethnolinguistic (and hence, ethnic) group. – Austronesier ( talk) 17:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Urdudaan as redirect per WP:CHEAP and draftify Urdu speaking people. The latter topic is notable but is best included in Urdu, unless we can assemble quality information that meets the notability of the general topic. – Austronesier ( talk) 08:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no assertion of notability let alone evidence of it Spiderone 06:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Reads like a fork. Editorkamran ( talk) 10:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - as per nom and Austronesier. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Changing to 'keep' following the retitling and reorganisation of the page. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 07:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Strong oppose The article needs work, but not deletion. The term is a historical term for the regions comprising that of the native Urdu speakers in British India, or the people themselves. It should be revised to make this clear along the lines of my talk page post. I'm surprised though that an AfD has been opened before reaching any kind of consensus on the talk page. The AfD has been opened and supported by people who are claiming they have never heard the word. Let the page exist for a month or two and then see how far it has devloped. I'm on vacation, so will not be returning. Please do not ping me. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment as I'm being called-in (albeit not by name but by reference) in previous post, I'm respondin to it.

Will you care to take burden of proof and prove that, "The term is a historical term for the regions comprising that of the native Urdu speakers in British India". We have been asking this from start and till now no-one has been able to provide anything.

And, yes, I have never heard of it, especially in the context of how it is being represented and utilized in the article, to denote native speakers of Urdu (btw...my mother tongue is Urdu & I'm native of Oudh esp. Lucknow-Faizabad region), but that is not the point, my personal views bear no weight, if there is ample proof to prove the merit of the term to render it fit to be title of an article and representative-word for a linguistic-group fighting for existence in it's native & elsewhere spaces.-- Fz ^t c _s 16:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Magichero1234: comment It is quite strange, the major contributor of the article not even commented a single word either to delete or keep the article, hope they might be aware of this discussion Majun e Baqi ( talk) 10:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment The user was notified here on the talk-page.-- Fz ^t c _s 11:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete The only source seems to be using the term as an urdu speaker while the other sources are about Urdu or other topics. Even if someone can come up with a source that verifies that the term is historical and specifically used as a term to describe urdu speakers, this would, at best, merit a line in the Urdu language page. -- regentspark

( comment) 14:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete The move to Urdu speaking people has made this even more redundant as an article. The entire content is already included in Urdu language. What next? Urdu speaking people who speak Urdu? -- regentspark ( comment) 14:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Strongest Keep There is an article for English people yet English language is an international language. Urdu is not even close to achieving that status, yet so many people are aganist this particular article which is very shameful. 2607:9880:4030:A8:F993:6731:57F4:FFE5 ( talk) 20:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment English people is not about the speakers of the English language. Many English speakers are not English, and some of them vehemently emphasize their non-Englishness. Speakers of English are covered in English-speaking world, but here we do not present the totality of English speakers as an ethnic group. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, for FWIW, there is also no page about Mandarin-speaking people. – Austronesier ( talk) 07:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep My apologies for not voicing my opinions until now. This is a word that we, especially in Pakistan, often use to refer to Muhajirs as well as Urdu speaking people from other ethnicities (most notably Punjabis). I think this page should stay because Urdudaans share not only a language, but many cultural traditions and foods. And as the user before me mentioned, if English People can have a page, why can't Urdudaans? Magichero1234 ( talk) 07:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment so that means Urdudaans is just another word for Muhajir people of Pakistan. Also, that means Urdudaans doesn't represent all the ethnic/native-Urdu-speakers, most of whom happen to be Indians. That further limits the scope of the term and by implication the article, that also means, the article is misrepresenting the facts. I'll suggest the editors including Magichero1234 to update the article in accordance with these comments.-- Fz ^t c _s 07:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment oh no I don't think I made myself clear enough. We use Urdudaan for anyone, not just Muhajirs. Urdudaan in Urdu means Urdu speaker. Magichero1234 ( talk) 07:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment I think, by this, "Urdudaan in Urdu means Urdu speaker" you mean ,"Urdudaan in Pakistan means Urdu speaker", because the term is not used (or very rarely) in India for Urdu speaker.-- Fz ^t c _s 07:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ Magichero1234: As already has been pointed out in the nomination, the page fails to meet WP:Verifiablity. We have already pointed out that Urdudaan is not used in English, and even if we found a better page title, the question remains if reliable sources present the totality of Urdu-speakers as an ethnolinguistic group. If this cannot be backed up by reliable sources, we end up with a page about Urdu-speaking people or Urdu-speaking world. In this case, I would question its WP:Notability for a standalone, because this is best covered in the main page Urdu, unless we have sizeable information that would justify a size-split (as in the case of English-speaking world). – Austronesier ( talk) 08:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment The only way this article could possibly (again, possibly) be retained is if it were to be renamed to "Urdu-speaking people" and its scope redefined accordingly. The latter is a broader definition which includes a large segment of the North Indian population, in addition to the people who speak Urdu as a first language in Pakistan. Mar4d ( talk) 17:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  Mar4d, agreed with your view to change the title to Urdu speaking people Majun e Baqi ( talk) 10:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  Mar4d why only possibly? Urdu-speaking people should be a very notable topic. It doesn't mean that group has to be a coherent ethnic group. See English-speaking world and Geographical distribution of French speakers. VR _talk 14:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Vice regent I'm not contesting the notability of Urdu-speaking people. In fact as I mentioned above, it would be quite coherent to have an article on the Urdu-speaking population in South Asia, particularly as it would include a large section of North Indian Muslims who belong to this identity. My only concern is content-based, deriving from the current article. Mar4d ( talk) 19:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

KEEP In light of Faizhaider's restructuring and Vice regent's suggestion, I am changing my view to keep. I am convinced that if we replace the non-notable term Urdudaan with Urdu speaking people, the article has a very good scope. Mar4d ( talk) 05:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I have made some additions in references to this effect. In case the consensus tilts toward delete, I would prefer that a merge be allowed first of the relevant material into the determined target article. Mar4d ( talk) 06:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Mar4d, in this case nominatorhave already withdrawn to keep with certain changes Majun e Baqi ( talk) 06:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment This article's very content is wrong, it refers Urdudaan to native Urdu speakers which I think is not entirely correct. Daan is Persian word which means knower, colloquially Urdudaan is used to denote a person expert in Urdu not just a knower. Similarly Sciencedaan(Scientist) is said to a person who is expert in science not just a knower. Like this article [13] about Patras Bokhari who taught English but was an Urdu writer says that "Angrezi ka naamwar Urdudaan (English's famous Urdudaan). The other terms are Urduwan and Urduban, these are remotely used terms to denote Urdu speakers, 'wan or ban' in Persian means speaker. Like Persian speakers are referred to as Farsiwans or Farsibans and Hindko speakers are referred to as Hindkowans. So this article's content needs to be rewritten if it stays or else it be deleted since Urdudaan is not much notable. An article on Urdu Wikipedia can be an option. USaamo ^{( t@lk)} 21:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  USaamo, I think it is quite easy to amend the article as per your view to make its way to keep Majun e Baqi ( talk) 10:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I've started a discussion on it's talk page regarding the matter, waiting for others to give view regarding the matter and if page stays, it will be added. USaamo ^{( t@lk)} 14:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

USaamo, I think the article has substantially changed as per the suggestions given by you, thanks Majun e Baqi ( talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Move to Urdu-speaking people, similar to English-speaking world and Geographical distribution of French speakers. Urdu is widely believed to be among the top 50 most widely spoken languages in the world. VR _talk 14:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I see the potential that the article can be rescued as a page covering the idea of having an article about the speakers of Urdu can be realized in a page Urdu-speaking people as a broad topic. This would essentially cover the content of the sections Demographics and geographic distribution, Cultural identity and Urdu speakers by country of the main article Urdu.. To avoid content forks, we will have to move the material of these three sections to Urdu-speaking people, and and leave a short summary with a hatote in the main article. I see two problems here: 1) The page Urdu is not excessively large, and the remaining article will lose much of its core content. 2) The content of these sections has some sourcing issues. The section "Urdu speakers by country" is even contested as completely improperly sourced and deletable, see Talk:Urdu. For these reasons I prefer to keep (and expand) the information in Urdu, and not to split it out just to salvage a failed attempt to maintain a page called "Urdudaan". – Austronesier ( talk) 15:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • So then this article should redirect to Urdu or Urdu#Demographics and geographic distribution until we are ready to fork? That's still different from a "delete" vote. VR _talk 15:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply
      • My !vote is still delete when it comes to Urdudaan per WP:V (the fact that the word exists in Urdu is not enough). I see a potential for Urdu-speaking people, but at the current stage, only as redirect to Urdu. – Austronesier ( talk) 16:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  Vice regent, It is already moved to Urdu speaking people, thanks Majun e Baqi ( talk) 05:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Still the pages Urdudaans & Urdudaan should be deleted, and the new article Urdu Speaking people should be Urdu speaking people and should be re-written thoroughly from scratc.-- Fz ^t c _s 15:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• • I'm fine with a re-write. In that case the closing admin should make that note. This is important because otherwise when we re-write people might come along and claim there is consensus that this is not a notable topic. But reading comments above, that's not true. VR _talk 15:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment I have made some amends to the article Urdu speaking people, and removed all reference to Urdudaan but it still need review and expansion-- Fz ^t c _s 22:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• May be Keep Urdu speaking people, with re-write; Strong Delete Urdudaans & Urdudaan.-- Fz ^t c _s 05:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  Faizhaider, I think as you have moved the page to Urdu speaking people, Urdudaans and Urdudaan are only a redirect just for reference not the separate article, lol Majun e Baqi ( talk) 06:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Majun e Baqi: I moved the page to Urdu speaking people from Urdu Speaking people, please bother to see the history (but even if you don't see the history you should be aware of it as it was you who performed the previous moves). I still vote for deletion for Urdudaans and Urdudaan, even if they are redirects, nothing is linking to them, what is the use to keep them?-- Fz ^t c _s 07:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete and redirect: The comments of Austronesier, to include the extra comments of 08:12, 14 July 2020, are compelling. Problems are 1)- the article is vague , 2)- any missing coverage can be presented in the article Urdu (as mentioned), so it is 3)- an unnecessary split. What is the need or want to create a new article with disregard that the parent article can use improvement through expansion of any missing material. -- Otr500 ( talk) 06:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Anything worth mentioning is covered far better and in more depth by the article on the Urdu language. This article appears to be an accidental WP:POVFORK from that article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Urdu speaking people with a redirect to Urdudaan Majun e Baqi ( talk) 13:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment for closer: This article was moved to Urdu speaking people during the AFD discussion. If closing using a script, please take care to ensure everything goes in the right place. Stifle ( talk) 11:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 12:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The definition fails verification and no such definition appears in any RS that mention lockdown dramas. It is not clear that any genre definition for this neologism is possible or that a consistent usage exists yet. A WP:BEFORE search shows only one characteristic in the usage: that a story is set in a domestic setting during the current pandemic. Trivially setting a story in a contemporary reality is not enough to posit a new genre. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep The 'genre' does appear to be gaining some traction; [14] [15] althogh it is seemingly only being used to describe 1 show at the moment. Part of my reason for voting keep is that shows about lockdown will most likely be made after lockdown has ended. AlessandroTiandelli333 ( talk) 20:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete one experimental series does not a genre make. Does not meet WP:GNG; way more sources are needed before you can say its even a "thing" yet. Curdle ( talk) 07:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - such a genre may develop but it's not time yet. See the essay Wikipedia:Too soon. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - What Doug said, a neologism that isn't ripe for an article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Simply WP:TOOSOON. Needs to gain lots of traction, shows, and reliable coverage for a genre to qualify. (Also I want a lockdown drama involving a family of rocks.) ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki ( talk | contribs) 17:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on television. Per above, it's not ready for its own article yet. The impact article is a good destination because, while so far it's mainly about productions being cancelled, it's where we should put content about how the pandemic has affected the type of TV being produced once someone gets around to writing it. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 20:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete It has two current existing examples...that isn't a genre. Also, it needs to be generally successful for a number of years and series/films/books to prove itself as a genre. So thus, calling my rationale as WP:TOOSOON, and if there's public resistance to these projects, then the genre will never exist. No redirect to the above, as again it has only two examples and can be thought of as an aberration. Nate • ( chatter) 22:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Not enough literature to support the claims of its existence. Examples seem anecdotal. — BriefEdits ( talk) 01:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

This article had no third party sources; now it has some, and is therefore kept.— S Marshall  T/ C 15:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Retired Enlisted Association (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Complete lack of notability no third-party references DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Zero third-party sources to support notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Diedrich, John (1998-08-07). "Retired enlisted group will honor founders - Headquarters renamed for two local veterans". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2020-07-05. Retrieved 2020-07-05.
  2. Pearce, Kelly (1997-05-04). "Veterans group looking for young ideas". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2020-07-05. Retrieved 2020-07-05.
  3. Walsh, Paul (2018-12-27). "Court orders veterans fundraiser to shut down, pay Minnesota groups $400,000". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-07-05. Retrieved 2020-07-05.
  4. Maze, Rick (2002-03-11). "Lawmaker wants to revoke TREA charter over fund-raising flap". Air Force Times. Archived from the original on 2020-07-05. Retrieved 2020-07-05.
  5. Philpott, Tom (September 2001). "Points of Interest: Lawmakers Blast Enlisted Group for "Bilking" Seniors". Proceedings. Archived from the original on 2020-07-05. Retrieved 2020-07-05.
  6. Potter, Leslie (2002-06-05). "Marshall brought scone recipe from trip to England". Hays Daily News. Archived from the original on 2020-07-05. Retrieved 2020-07-05 – via Newspapers.com.
  7. Schiller, Nicole E. (2008). "Examining Veterans' Interest Groups: Understanding Success Through Interest Group Ratings". Res Publica. Illinois Wesleyan University. Archived from the original on 2020-07-05. Retrieved 2020-07-05.
  8. Chadwell, Samantha (2018-10-26). "Honor Their Service: The Retired Enlisted Association (TREA)". KNBN. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-05.

  Sources with quotes

  Diedrich, John (1998-08-07). "Retired enlisted group will honor founders - Headquarters renamed for two local veterans". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2020-07-05. Retrieved 2020-07-05. The article notes: So in early 1963, Sorell and George Skonce, both Colorado Springs residents, organized the first meeting of The Retired Enlisted Association. In the 35 years since, TREA has grown into a nationwide veterans group with 85,000 members. The Springs chapter is the largest local unit, with 3,000 members. ... The organization won other fights, such as exempting a portion of retired pay from state income tax and shielding widows and widowers of veterans from high inheritance tax in Colorado. ... In November 1964, TREA expanded beyond the Pikes Peak region to form a chapter in Georgia. Five more chapters formed before TREA's first national convention in 1967. Today, there are 56 chapters. In 1970, TREA formed an auxiliary, which now has 16,000 members. Pearce, Kelly (1997-05-04). "Veterans group looking for young ideas". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2020-07-05. Retrieved 2020-07-05. The article notes: A group to support retired enlisted service members in Colorado Springs was born out of a coffee break. Two retired Air Force sergeants - George Skonce and Dean Sorell - wanted a way to fight for their rights and a place to mingle with fellow veterans. As they sat and sipped coffee at Peterson Air Force Base in 1957, they dreamed up The Retired Enlisted Association, or TREA. In February 1963, they held the first meeting: Forty-four people showed up at what was then Ent Air Force Base, now the U.S. Olympic Complex. ... Today, TREA has blossomed into a 50-chapter organization with 3,200 members locally and 85,000 nationally. Dues start at $20 a year. Walsh, Paul (2018-12-27). "Court orders veterans fundraiser to shut down, pay Minnesota groups $400,000". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-07-05. Retrieved 2020-07-05. The article notes: A nonprofit that sought and collected donations supposedly for paid phone cards for veterans and their families was ordered by a Minnesota court Thursday to shut down after the state Attorney General's Office said the charity fraudulently collected hundreds of thousands of dollars. Along with closing operations, Colorado-based TREA (The Retired Enlisted Association) Memorial Foundation must come up with more than $400,000 that will be distributed to legitimate veterans-support groups in the state, according to the Minnesota Attorney General's Office, which prevailed in Ramsey County District Court. Maze, Rick (2002-03-11). "Lawmaker wants to revoke TREA charter over fund-raising flap". Air Force Times. Archived from the original on 2020-07-05. Retrieved 2020-07-05. The article notes: A House lawmaker has unveiled a bill to revoke the federal charter of The Retired Enlisted Association because of what he calls the group's "misleading" fund-raising tactics. ... TREA formed the League in 1992 as a special project to serve civilian retirees. Niski said the board of directors of the enlisted association still elects the board of trustees for the senior citizens' group, but TREA is not involved in day-to-day management of the group. Many associations such as TREA have federal charters. They are prestigious stamps of approval, but are not required for such groups to exist. Philpott, Tom (September 2001). "Points of Interest: Lawmakers Blast Enlisted Group for "Bilking" Seniors". Proceedings. Archived from the original on 2020-07-05. Retrieved 2020-07-05. The article notes: Nothing of the sort, however, occurred on 26 July at a hearing of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the House Ways and Means Committee. Representatives of The Retired Enlisted Association (TREA), the ninth-largest U.S. veterans service organization, appeared under subpoena to explain their role in what lawmakers contend has been a systematic effort to bilk senior citizens. Lawmakers and federal investigators said TREA, through a "special project" group called the TREA Senior Citizens League, uses misleading information to entice elderly Americans to donate cash and add their names to mailing lists that TREA then rents to other organizations. ... TREA itself has approximately 100,000 members, most of them retired enlisted. But the Senior Citizens League, begun by TREA seven years ago, has a donor list of 1.3 million elderly Americans, most of them persons who hope to gain better Social Security benefits through a legislative victory. League brochures suggest victory is near; lawmakers with jurisdiction over the issue say victory is very unlikely. Potter, Leslie (2002-06-05). "Marshall brought scone recipe from trip to England". Hays Daily News. Archived from the original on 2020-07-05. Retrieved 2020-07-05 – via Newspapers.com. The article notes: According to the letter you received, you would not quality as a member of The Retired Enlisted Association anyway, since you never served in any branch of the Armed Services. That aside, TREA is a legitimate organization, founded in 1963 and chartered by Congress in 1992. There have been some stirrings in Congress to revoke that charter, largely due to the political activity of a subsidiary branch of TREA called TREA Senior Citizens League, or TSCL. (TSCL recently has been covered in this column in connection with its request for funds to lobby for Social Security "Notch Baby" remediation.) Both TREA and TSCL have Web sites: [websites] TREA is listed as a veterans' services organization on the Veterans Administration Web site. Schiller, Nicole E. (2008). "Examining Veterans' Interest Groups: Understanding Success Through Interest Group Ratings". Res Publica. Illinois Wesleyan University. Archived from the original on 2020-07-05. Retrieved 2020-07-05. The article notes: The Retired Enlisted Association (RE) was created in 1963 and works for the expressed purpose of “[enhancing] the quality of life for uniformed services enlisted personnel, their families and survivors-including active components, Reserves, and National Guard, and all retirees” (Retired Enlisted Association). With less wealth and membership than all previously mentioned groups, the Retired Enlisted Association very rarely takes a stand on issues that are not directly related to the interests of former enlisted service people. Chadwell, Samantha (2018-10-26). "Honor Their Service: The Retired Enlisted Association (TREA)". KNBN. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-05. The article notes: In this week’s segment of “Honor Their Service,” we introduce you to The Retired Enlisted Association (TREA). The Retired Enlisted Association (TREA) was started by two enlisted servicemen from Colorado Springs back in 1963. They saw a need for having an enlisted association. TREA went through the whole process and was sanctioned by Congress to have a national charter. Its goal is to help and serve both active duty and retired veterans as a whole. There are about 45 active chapters across the U.S. but only one in South Dakota. John Martinez is the treasurer of TREA Chapter 29 in Rapid City with about 550 members. John is originally from East Los Angeles and spent 26 years in the U.S. Air Force. He started out as a communication specialist. Later, he served in the Vietnam era and then spent many years serving in the NATO Nations.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Retired Enlisted Association to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 00:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Pinging Evrik ( talk · contribs) who contested the soft deletion. Cunard ( talk) 00:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep I just reorganized the article, added a source, and an infobox. I placed all the above sources into external links. What this needs is some attention. I suggest that someone take some time and flesh out the history section, and something on the services they provide. -- evrik ^{( talk)} 01:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

Non-notable businessperson. Despite the refbombing, all of the refs are not beyond a trivial mention, not in independent, reliable sources, and/or simply spam refs. My attempts to find actual RS coverage didn't come up with much.

Article is entirely promotional, written almost entirely by an SPA. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 15:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 15:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 15:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP: NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 17:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete No evidence in article or in searches of passing GNG or any applicable SNG. What references that do exist which are significant are either not reliable or not independent and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Anyone else notice the references supposedly used have access dates years before the article was even created? It also reads more like a resume to me. Bakertheacre ^Chat/ _{My Contibutions} 11:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not a sign of notability in this promotional essay, and not even a likely merge target. -- Lockley ( talk) 22:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 06:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. General consensus, further discussion about moving or merging to be left on article talk page. (non-admin closure) Night fury 14:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

List of titles and honours of the British Monarch (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This article was recently blanked-and-redirected without discussion on its talk page. I have reverted that edit and am opening a discussion about it instead. A.D.Hope ( talk) 15:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• The proper place for that discussion would be on the other editor's talk page, or the talk page of the list. Why did you invoke deletion processes, when you do not seem to be advocating for deletion? I think speedy keep is appropriate. postdlf ( talk) 16:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Regarding that redirection (by someone other than the nominator), this page is about the titles held by the monarch over time, which has changed; that editor tried to redirect to just the titles held by the current monarch, Elizabeth II, which would of course not be correct. postdlf ( talk) 22:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• KEEP Perfect valid list article, listing a notable subject and aiding in navigation by grouping a lot of related articles. Dream Focus 17:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• KEEP - Seems like a valid article that a people would find useful and is definitely notable TimeEngineer ( talk) 21:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect/merge to Style of the British sovereign. It's a content fork. DrKay ( talk) 13:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • But that’s not the same precise topic; how the monarch is to be addressed (“style”) does not include listing every title that monarch holds. You had also tried redirecting this list, which covers the titles and honours held over history, to a page that is just about what is held by the current monarch. So you’ve seemed confused (or indifferent) as to the intended scope. postdlf ( talk) 14:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Don't tell me about my own edits or the scope of my knowledge. I'm more aware of them than you are, so retorting them back to me and calling me confused is clearly only meant to be aggressive and uncivil. DrKay ( talk) 15:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:LISTN aides in navigation and provides information for our readers Lightburst ( talk) 19:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Old Dominion Monarchs football. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 13:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

List of Old Dominion Monarchs in the NFL Draft (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No reason that this needs to be a stand-alone list. Absolutely falls under WP:IINFO. No references that show that it's a notable topic in its own right. Slashme ( talk) 15:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Slashme ( talk) 15:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge into Old Dominion Monarchs football. No need to leave a redirect. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Yes there is, for attribution purposes; see Wikipedia:Merge and delete. The redirect may not be much value, but deleting it is more trouble than it's worth. postdlf ( talk) 16:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge per Muboshgu. Cbl62 ( talk) 16:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge no reason to have a stand-alone list at this time. I have no objection to leaving a re-direct (It's not like it would need to be replaced or get confused by an article about the "other" List of Old Dominion Monarchs in the NFL Draft -- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Muboshgu, with no prejudice against recreation if and when there are enough list items to justify the recreation of a separate list article. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 22:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge - there is no reason to have a standalone list when there are only two entries -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 09:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Peter Kelly (Entrepreneur) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

paid for spam sourced to unreliable tabloids, outside of the one okay source (The Telegraph) which looks just like a puffy "feel good" piece Praxidicae ( talk) 14:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP: NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 17:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete I also tagged for speedy but creator claims for notability. Advertisement & Non-notable business person. fails WP:GNG. DMySon 06:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment the page's creator has now been perma-banned for undisclosed paid editing. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 09:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 11:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

Subject fails WP:NARTIST and WP:ANYBIO. The subject is a mere mention in each citation and many of the citations are where she displayed artwork, so not independent. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete all I could find is one short review in the LA Times. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 21:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Really quickly: http://diversionsla.com/entwined-roots-symbiotic-relationships-magical-art-from-gary-brewer-aline-mare/
  https://artandcakela.com/2020/03/30/artist-profile-gary-brewer-aline-mare/
  http://voyagela.com/interview/check-aline-mares-artwork/
  https://www.sleek-mag.com/article/the-chris-kraus-column-1/
  https://artnowla.com/2018/05/17/aline-mare/
  https://www.laweekly.com/requiem-for-kathy-acker-an-evening-of-readings-and-art-at-beyond-baroque/
  https://whitehotmagazine.com/articles/mare-open-up-this-body/3932
  https://artandcakela.com/2018/04/13/studio-visit-aline-mare-mutable-fire/
  https://www.visualartsource.com/index.php?page=editorial&com=media&pcID=36&aID=3719 Vexations ( talk) 22:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Per above sources. -- Micky ( talk) 00:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 04:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Assuming good faith, but Mickly/Micericky is a one-day old account. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 01:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• I maintain a custom Google search engine of visual art sources, which had very little on this artist. Her S'Aline's Solution appears to have a fair amount of coverage, though, and could probably support an article. It was addressed in a popular essay by Valerie Hartouni in the 1998 book The Visible Woman, which in turn was covered in book reviews and other mentions. Essay first published 1992, 1997. An intro to an interview and more short treatments of the work: [16] [17] [18] Apart from that work, would need to look for more offline sources on the artist. Also known as Aline Mayer. (not watching, please {{ ping}}) czar 22:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep She has a ULAN listing and had enough sources to prove notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 11:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The notability is dubious. Two reliable sources mention the subject very briefly and another one is an interview with the subject. All the other sources are self-published by the subject and their existence doesn't establish notability. The only notable event here could be covered by the WP:SINGLEEVENT policy, and there is no article about the event, and probably shouldn't be. Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 08:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 08:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Article is about someone famous for one event, not notable Seasider91 ( talk) 19:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Extensively and reliably sourced. Coverage in WP:RS extends well past the government office bombing, so WP:SINGLEEVENT doesn't apply. None of the sources used here are self-published; Bartetzko's book is listed but isn't used as a source. This could probably be expanded even further (it took me only a few seconds to find an extensive Deutsche Welle article). Amanuensis Balkanicus ( talk) 22:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Properly sourced and mentioned in a number of sources. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Sufficient reliable sources - though only just enough - to meet WP criteria. The BBC News and Deutsche Welle articles are particularly persuasive. Further, there are a couple of other Deutsche Welle articles on the guy not cited in the article (though some are translations of the same article). Fiachra10003 ( talk) 12:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment Would it not be better to create 2001 Pristina car bombing, merge the contents of this article into that, and subsequently add more detail about the bombing, beyond simply his involvement? Per WP:PERP, it strikes me the article should be about the incident, not him, seeing as that's really what he's notable for. A brief look suggests sufficient sources exist - and these are only English language ones I'm looking at. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't think the car bombing itself is as notable as the individual. However, if you wish to create a new article on that subject, I won't object. Amanuensis Balkanicus ( talk) 17:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to SPARQL. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 04:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

Exists, but doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn ( talk) 16:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Eleven years of collecting tags on Wikipedia seems to be about the most notable thing this has got going for it. Mccapra ( talk) 06:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply

*Delete per above. Does not meet WP:GNG. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Sumalatha, M.R.; Parvathy, M. (2013). "Keyword Search Retrieval for Structured Data using RDF for E-Learning Application". 2013 Fifth International Conference on Advanced Computing (ICoAC). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi: 10.1109/ICoAC.2013.6921959. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
  2. Kalou, Aikaterini K.; Koutsomitropoulos, Dimitrios A. (2016). "Chapter 31: Towards Semantic Mashups: Tools, Methodologies, and State of the Art". Mobile Computing and Wireless Networks: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Information Resources Management Association. pp. 712–713. ISBN  978-1-4666-8751-6. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
  3. Medhe, Shrutika; Phalke, D.A. (2013). "RDF data retrieval in structured format using aggregate function and keyword search in MashQL". Third International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Information Technology. Institution of Engineering and Technology: 287–294. doi: 10.1049/cp.2013.2604. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
  4. Nguyen, Thanh; Nguyen, Dung T.; Cao, Thi H. (2014). "Acceptance and Use of Information System: E-Learning Based on Cloud Computing in Vietnam". In Neuhold, Erich J.; Tjoa, A Min; You, Ilsun (eds.). Information and Communication Technology: Second IFIP TC 5/8 International Conference, ICT-EurAsia 2014, Bali, Indonesia, April 14-17, 2014, Proceedings. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 134–135. ISBN  978-3-642-55031-7. Retrieved 2020-06-29.

  Sources with quotes

  Sumalatha, M.R.; Parvathy, M. (2013). "Keyword Search Retrieval for Structured Data using RDF for E-Learning Application". 2013 Fifth International Conference on Advanced Computing (ICoAC). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi: 10.1109/ICoAC.2013.6921959. Retrieved 2020-06-29. The abstract notes: E-learning is an interactive learning system with a computer through Internet connection. The retrieval of book details by e-learning users is generally difficult, since those data are structured. The structured data face the challenging issues in retrieval process. The schema of the data is not known to the user in order to query, which is also user friendly to the end users. Here E-Iearning materials may be schema-free or poorly-schematized. In this proposed work, a graphical query formulation language, called MashQL, is used in order to easily query structured data in E-Iearning application. Even, when the end users have limited technical background they can query and explore multiple data sources. This is the main significance of MashQL. This work aims in introducing semantic keyword search to retrieve the structured data. Kalou, Aikaterini K.; Koutsomitropoulos, Dimitrios A. (2016). "Chapter 31: Towards Semantic Mashups: Tools, Methodologies, and State of the Art". Mobile Computing and Wireless Networks: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Information Resources Management Association. pp. 712–713. ISBN  978-1-4666-8751-6. Retrieved 2020-06-29. The book notes: MashQL The remarkable success of Yahoo Pipes (Jarrar & Dikaiakos, 2008, Le Phuoc, Polleres, Morbidoni, Hauswirth, & Tummarello, 2009) in regard to other mashup editors motivated Jarrar et al (Jarrar & Dikaiakos, 2008) to propose MashQL, an interactive query formulation language. The idea of combining different data sources into mashups, in a graphical and user-friendly way without having to write code, as proposed by Yahoo Pipes application, was adopted by the inspirators of MashQL. So, the goal of MashQL is to enable non-experienced end-users to create their data mashups diagrammatically. The main assumptions that have been made are that Internet is supposed to be a database and each internet data source is seen as a table and represented in RDF. Next, a mashup is considered as a query on these tables and the query is expressed by SPARQL. The novelty of MashQL is that no knowledge about RDF/SPARQL technologies nor any prior understanding of the schema or the structure of the consumed source are required in order to create the mashup. Medhe, Shrutika; Phalke, D.A. (2013). "RDF data retrieval in structured format using aggregate function and keyword search in MashQL". Third International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Information Technology. Institution of Engineering and Technology: 287–294. doi: 10.1049/cp.2013.2604. Retrieved 2020-06-29. The abstract notes: In this paper we refer the method to retrieve the web data in structured format using MashQL approach with the help of SPARQL language which allows user to query, navigate, and mash-up a data source(s) without knowing schema and how the data is stored into the database. Assuming web data as input in RDF format used to represent the metadata of the Web applications in structured manner. We can query by using SPARQL language which is the recent recommendation by the W3C. By using this approach we mentioned how user having less technical knowledge is able to retrieve the data in structured format using drop down operations and interactive methods. We mentioned that how retrieval results will be faster by providing keyword search and then use MashQL approach. We also mentioned an aggregate function (e.g. sum, avg, max etc) in MashQL so user can perform a calculation on a set of values and return a single value. Nguyen, Thanh; Nguyen, Dung T.; Cao, Thi H. (2014). "Acceptance and Use of Information System: E-Learning Based on Cloud Computing in Vietnam". In Neuhold, Erich J.; Tjoa, A Min; You, Ilsun (eds.). Information and Communication Technology: Second IFIP TC 5/8 International Conference, ICT-EurAsia 2014, Bali, Indonesia, April 14-17, 2014, Proceedings. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 134–135. ISBN  978-3-642-55031-7. Retrieved 2020-06-29. The book notes: MashQL This tool enables users to exploit the benefits of Web of Data without prior knowledge of semantic web technologies such as RDF and SPARQL. By using the query-by diagram paradigm, it allows users to query and mash up a massive amount of structured data on the web intuitively. The core element of MashQL system is a visual editor that processes the input data and generate the required output. Here, the users merely choose the attributes of input concepts that should appear in the widgets output. It also enables the users to filter data with some arithmetic and relational operators for string and numeric attributes. The widget output can then be piped as a new input for other MashQL widgets and mashed up with other data inputs as shown in Fig. 4. The system then translates this process into a SPARQL query which is transparent to the users.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow MashQL to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 18:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Interesting refs Cunard has turned up. I couldn’t find those at all on a WP:BEFORE, but I had not considered that more scholarly material might exist. I have stricken my delete !vote for now, and may consider a keep !vote upon further review. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge into SPARQL. The existence of the technology is of interest to people in SPARQL, but I don't think the refs Cunard has found will sustain a strong article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge to SPARQ per above. Coverage does NOT warrant an independent article. If in doubt, it has less than 1 view per day and has been tagged for a number of years. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge as others have said already. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 22:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 ( talk) 21:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Taunsa Sharif bombing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT, no persistent coverage over period of time. Störm (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 00:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 00:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep because, as noted amongst sources like this, it was notable as both a suicide attack in terms of intensity, and as an attack on the office of a federal parliament member. A terror incident like this causing eight casualties anywhere else in the world would be recorded similarly on Wikipedia. Mar4d ( talk) 16:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep it's notable -- Devokewater ( talk) 12:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Mar4d. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 04:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was draftify. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 13:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Childbirth in Uzbekistan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

References included in article are either dead urls or so generic as not to be ascertainable whether they support article material or not, and thus entire article appears to be based on original research and opinion. No encyclopedic material is included in the article and thus it is of such low quality that it should be deleted. werewolf ( talk) 23:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Userfy or Draftify. Obviously, in its current state with essentially no references whatsoever the article should not be live. However, the topic would seem notable and the content of the article seems useful, it just needs to be supported by reliable sources, which is why I think that the article should be either draftified or userfied to give it time to develop. Zoozaz1 ( talk) 01:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 03:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Draftify We have a number of country-based ‘Childbirth in X’ articles that are well written and well sourced, but this isn’t one of them. Mccapra ( talk) 12:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Deshmukhs of Sowali (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, fails WP:GNG - MRRaja001 ( talk) 11:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MRRaja001 ( talk) 11:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no evidence of notability Spiderone 06:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 06:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 06:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

J-Dawg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG No notable wrestler. Only worked on a regional level, sources doesn't focus on him. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 11:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable professional wrestler. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails WP:GNG No notable wrestler. Only worked on a regional level, sources doesn't focus on him. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 11:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable professional wrestler. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

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 America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Dirty Dennis Allen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG No notable wrestler. Only worked on a regional level, sources doesn't focus on him. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 11:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

D. S. Bradford (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article was recreated after last deletion in 2019. Though this iteration has more sources, I still don't see any that clearly meet reliable sources for indie/altenative music (as a fan of this genre of music, I'm aware of the most prominent sources for it) other than the AllMusic entry. The rest seem to be coming from obscure blogs and sites that solicit press releases; examples include [19], [20], [21]. Though the creator denies a WP:COI here, nearly all of their contributions have been centered on Bradford, including a film he made (deleted via Afd here), and a company he was a part of (speedied here). There's also this which I'm not sure what to make of. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC) ( reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 23:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 23:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination and the previous one. Vast majority of sources are primary/unreliable, combined with COI concerns, deletion seems to be the best option. WhinyTheYounger ( talk) 15:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article remained for five years with no contest. There are other articles about artists (example: Paul The Trombonist) that have been created in similar fashion as the subject of this article, with legitimate sources and a user who created the article for that person and not much else. Instead of deletion, move it to draft and continue improving. The person is legitimate, as are the sources. In looking into things further, even though some sources pulled information from a bio, there are completely strong and independent publications with good information that is verifiable. The entry has withstood For five years without an issue. Let it be moved to draft and continued to be worked on, perhaps with more contributors, and let us reach an agreement (in a nicer way than what has been happening). THBAO ( talk) 21:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC) — THBAO ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Comment So on on hand, you're saying we should keep this article because other stuff exists, such as Paul The Trombonist, then you go on to nominate Paul the Trombonest for deletion? Well, OK. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Only calling attention to it (and it was done prior to my comment here, so to be correct here: I called attention to it, then came here to discuss and my considerations unfolded afterwards), as this one was also placed into the same category, in your opinion. That doesn't necessarily mean that it will get deleted, just that it might be worth taking a look at, and since there are similarities, maybe both should be improved and revisited. It would be fair, would it not? We're all here trying to add value, not take it away. There is, and never has been, anything done here to warrant the aggressive response or a reason to not be nice. It seems like we should take some consideration and pump the brakes, so to speak. Constructive vs. Destructive. Thanks. THBAO ( talk) 22:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - THBAO asked me to take a look at this as a fresh set of eyes as I’d deprodded Paul The Trombonist. Those of you who have seen my AFDs will know I’m not an inclusionist by default, but there is a case here. The sources by PopMatters, Niji magazine and the staff-authored bio from AllMusic are all appropriate sources for this article. There are a lot of poor quality sources which I would like to see taken out, but this does not mean the subject isn’t notable. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 17:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

*Delete I disagree with what you cited as being evidence of notable source coverage. PopMatters and Niji are basic new release announcements/video posts with obligatory editorial culled from promotional hype verbiage. As of 2020 such stuff is run-of-the-mill. AllMusic is--as ever--problematic on a case by case basis. If ever there is evidence of why staff bylines at AllMusic are not necessarily the indicator of editorial oversight, please note that this one is simply a verbatim cut and paste of his bio from his own website. As others have stated, there is no significant coverage for this subject, merely verification of his existence. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 22:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Preferably speedy as a purely promotional repost. Differences between this an the deleted version are superficial. If not speedy the regular deletion as non notable, as at last afd. Wikipedia is not here for promotion. Coverage is lacking. Maybe good, popmatters and a very short allmusic. That's it and that's not enough. The Niji source mentioned above is clearly not an independent reliable source. Pure pr. Aside from being obviously so from reading it it contains the same crufty wording as found elsewhere. Google the wanky pr "great fortune of consulting with award-winning artist development coach" And you get Apple Music and YouTube bios. duffbeerforme ( talk) 23:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete having reflected on this I’ve struck my vote above. The AllMusic biog is particularly concerning as this is an argument that I see time and again at AFD as a barometer of notability. Is there anyway of adding this intel to the list of WP:RS? Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 07:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment Upon adding further improvements and continued searches for archival footage from news orgs, I propose having this article moved back into draft form. The article has been cleaned up considerably, dead links recovered, and new sources added (Muck Rack and The Next Web to support journalism fork in career section). More sources will continue to be added. AllMusic is a legitimate source with independent writers and editorial processes. With regards to the claim that the bio as written on AllMusic was taken verbatim from the subject's website, I disagree based on date-stamps found on Internet Archive. November 5, 2016 was the first occurrence of the AllMusic bio found here. It wasn't until January 17, 2017 that the bio appeared on the subject's website and was attributed to AllMusic here. There just appears to be a mixup in judging of the reliability based upon that and this clears up the chronological error. Again, let us consider that there is a case here and that this article can continue to be improved upon, whether in it's current state or in draft. Thank you THBAO ( talk) 16:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note to closing admin THBAO has already had it moved it into draft after the first AfD, and resurrected it a few months later barely changed, and again here to try to avoid this second AfD. There's been more than enough time to improve this article after the first AfD. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Bombo Sports & Entertainment (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Couldn't find reliable references for information provided, most of which seems to be independent research Suonii180 ( talk) 10:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply