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

The result was delete. The analysis in the pro-deletion comments appears to be largely accurate and on-point. RL0919 ( talk) 04:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

White Palace (Dhamdachha)

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

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

All sources are fake. All news stories claims to be based in Brussels [1], but they "share" that office with another business, [2] They even share their phone number. The same is true of .vernamagazine.com, apstersmedia.com and openthenews.com who also all share an office. I suspect that this page was created to de-orphan Shawar Ali, whose biography is also riddled with similar sources. Vexations ( talk) 23:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

• Delete It does seem to exist, as this video seems to match the image in the article, as well as the name. But that video confirms to me that this article is just promotionalism. The Allnews source happens to have a picture of Shawar Ali at the bottom, and the website seems to have been created quite recently. And googling turned up nothing useful for pages, so doesn't seem notable either. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

 Comment: Noting the creation and subsequent deletion of White Palace Dhamdachha — billinghurst sDrewth 09:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Appears to be a newly constructed building, despite heritage claims. The offical website is suspiciously silent on any specifics of the building's history. Fails WP:NBUILD. I note their Instagram account has 1.2 million followers, but browsing their numerous five-star one-word Google reviews, I doubt anything can be concluded from that other than a strong desire to promote the building as a location for photo-shoots.---- Pontificalibus 10:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete as the article was likely created by a sockpuppet of banned user User:Whitepalacegujrat. Sambhil32 my apologies for the sockpuppet assumption. The article is still definitely a Delete. All of the sources are from what appear to be pay-for-coverage sites. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 18:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  I created the article and I am not a sockpuppet of any banned user. Sambhil32 ( talk) 20:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ GPL93: If you have evidence for that claim, please take it to WP:SPI. ミラ P 05:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I created the page and I will try adding some reliable sources. Sambhil32 ( talk) 20:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• delete there is not a single reliable source here. this is not a reliable source, it's yet another fake news blackhat SEO site, and should anyone need further proof take a peek at their gallery of "writers" which are all stock images. Every single source here is also owned by the same spam company. Praxidicae ( talk) 15:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Okay, I am convinced. I tried my best but I couldn't find any other sources apart from those I already put in the article. Sambhil32 ( talk) 19:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I am not sure what is the criteria for building, but there seems to be enough news sources for the building. 157.47.246.112 ( talk) 03:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep The building has news from several sources, I am not sure how these are fake, 1 2 3 4. There is no point to delete a page for a heritage building that is a major tourist attraction in the city. 157.37.203.163 ( talk) 05:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• delete there is not a single reliable source here. The IP above my comment has provided four sources. First is IBTimes: it is a clear cut puffed peice about the web show, and the subject. Most likely PR/paid for advertiesement of both the web series, and "shooting venue". Second is style.yahoo, at the bottom of the article, it states that the article first appeared at popdiaries. Popdiaries is owned, and handled by one individual. It is a clear cut promotional piece for Zulfi, Munna, and the palace. It also fails as a relaiable source. The third is stateman, it has just a little coverage of the palace, but seems like it was too a puffed up press release for the series, and actors. Fourth is vernamagzine. This has been covered in the nomination. Overall, it looks like the palace, and web series are trying to promote themselves together. In either case, it fails WP:NBUILDING, and it fails general notability criteria by miles. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment: What does likely paid means? Can you prove or it is just based on perception. Do you think that sources like IBTimes, stateman or any other reliable source won't disclose for paid? Sidtever ( talk) 16:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per usernamekiran's careful analysis of the sources presented in this discussion Dartslilly ( talk) 20:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep it passes WP:NBUILD with the current coverage from stateman and other reliable sources. We cant say that these are paid articles until they explicitly says that, it totally based on user's perception and if there is a doubt it must definitely go in favor of the creator. Until you cant prove it, there is no point of bringing it. Sidtever ( talk) 16:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

You can say it as much as you want but the Statesmen is not a reliable source. Praxidicae ( talk) 16:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

In any case we need significant coverage that addresses the subject in-depth. The Statesman article merely mentions it in passing in a single sentence.---- Pontificalibus 16:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

The Statesman (India) was started in 1875 and it is one of the most reliable source with a daily circulation of 180,000 and if any article is paid, they explicitly mentions it on their website and newspaper. Saying it is not a reliable source is an incorrect statement. Statesman and ibm have disclosure for paid media, which clearly means these news articles are not paid. Bejinativity ( talk) 04:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Statesman is a reliable news source with other sources from IBT, yahoo and a few others. Bejinativity ( talk) 04:13, 27 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 23:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Guillermo Zapata (actor)

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

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

Already deleted last September under G11 and G12, this individual clearly fails NACTOR and GNG. All coverage revolves around the restaurant he co-owns with Lisa Vanderpump (and a lawsuit) and is not about him. Note notability is not inherited nor garnered via association. His "roles" have been very minor ones, and most citations link to puff articles. I suggest salting the name as well. His Spanish language coverage is of a similar nature, also revolving around an apparent "likeness" to George Clooney and his father's singing fame (mostly in Argentinian tabloids). I didn't nominate under CSD G4 given the copyright violation is no more, and it no longer appears to be identical to its former version (although I obviously cannot verify this myself). Finally, the article appears to have been edited by someone with close ties to the subject. For evidence, contact me. PK650 ( talk) 23:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 ( talk) 23:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PK650 ( talk) 23:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Nothing but puff articles could be found in a search, and the odd thing about them is that they are all quite similar as are the images posted with the puff articles on basically unknown sites. As the nom stated, much of the coverage is about the subject's restaurant. Notability has not been shown. Fails WP:BIO and does not meet WP:GNG. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 03:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete I tried to find articles about them on Google but nothing came up. Definitely not notable. Idolmm ( talk) 07:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I had a quick look on imdb but couldn't find any noteworthy credits, and he only has two producer credits for films that have not yet been released (so it may be WP:TOOSOON in that regard). Therefore, I don't think he meets the notability criteria for actors. Dflaw4 ( talk) 07:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete per WP:SIGCOV - there's some coverage of his appearance akin to George Clooney, but it's either from unreliable sources or in passing, with an ¡Ay, caramba! feel to it.
• Delete Article was deleted recently and a google search turns up only blog or tabloid type sources, but not enough to meet the WP:GNG Dartslilly ( talk) 20:50, 25 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 23:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

After Hours (British TV series)

After Hours (British TV series) (  | 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 to meet WP:TVSERIES/ WP:GNG. DarkGlow ( talk) 22:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep: National TV show as per WP:TVSERIES. There's the usual coverage of a new show before broadcast ( Radio Times) and after ( The Telegraph). Also coverage on British Comedy Guide. It's not a very good article and it doesn't have references, but they WP:NEXIST and there's no reason to say this is worse than any other run of the mill article on a one-season national TV show. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 00:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep It aired on Sky One, a major national network. Needs work, but there are much worse TV series articles here than this. Nate • ( chatter) 01:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- Toughpig's references are plenty sufficient to indicate notability. matt91486 ( talk) 12:09, 26 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 23:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Jessica Markowski

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

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

Fake sources: vernamagazine.com, fabworldtoday, globestats.com, apstersmedia.com all share the same address. The author of https://artvoice.com/2019/12/11/jessica-markowski-a-model-an-actress-and-now-a-street-cleaner-yes-really/, jamiemoses288, is also Louisa Warwick, who lives in NYC and is a recent graduate of NYU, except on the source for Gilda Joelle Osborn [3] where she's not. Someone is creating fake news websites to generate buzz for their clients. Vexations Another very strong & false accusation to make. No one is creating fake news websites. Rolling Stone, WWD (Womens Wear Daily), Robb Report and ART news all share the same address also (475 5th Ave, New York,NY,10017). Many publications share the same address. It does not mean they are fake news publications. Also regarding Louisa Warwick you can google her and see she is a graduate of NYU. There are around 50 websites that confirm that What is the point you are trying to make? She didn't graduate NYU? Ciaragomez1 ( talk) 22:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Vexations ( talk) 21:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Strange faux sources aside, not enough coverage that I could uncover on Google to support GNG. JamieWhat ( talk) 22:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• @ Vexations: It is a strong claim to say 'someone is creating fake news websites' when there are 30 sources in this wikipedia article including Thrive Global, Huffington Post, Backstage, IMDB, Promo Magazine, BRWC and several others created on this subject over the past 3 years. On the previous wikipedia article on Gilda Joelle Osborn you also claimed Naluda Magazine had no contact page when it is clearly listed here https://www.naludamagazine.com/contact/. Ciaragomez1 ( talk) 05:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Ciaragomez1, it's just a little odd that that contact page isn't actually linked from the main page. I did do a search and check the source code. I even tried https://www.naludamagazine.com/contact-us/, but that didn't have any info on it. So yes, I wrongly assumed that they didn't have one. I'm surprised you found it. Vexations ( talk) 13:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete when the defence of an article mentions IMDb, which is not a reliable source, there is clearly not an understanding of what reliable sourcing looks like to justify having an article. There have been IMDb entries on people who never existed, it is not a reliable source. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete with fire as per my rationale on this group of fake news sourced spammy BLPs. Praxidicae ( talk) 20:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: In terms of her acting career, the subject doesn't pass the notability guidelines. I will defer to other editors as to her modelling career notability. Dflaw4 ( talk) 07:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Terrible sourcing - they are all social media and blogs. Her run of the mill acting career consists of cameos and red shirts. Bearian ( talk) 18:59, 24 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 23:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Gilda Joelle Osborn

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

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

Sources are fake. News Distinct http://www.newsdistinct.com/contact/ Coverage Log http://www.coveragelog.com/contact/, Curious Desk http://www.curiousdesk.com/contact/ (who forgot to fix a copy/paste error from the Daily Beast), are all operated from the same address. naludamagazine.com has no byline and no contact information at all. Vexations ( talk) 21:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Vexations: There are 20 sources total in this wikipedia page- you are claiming 3 are fake. You then mention Naluda Magazine has no contact information when they provide a contact page, contact form, contact address and email. Sources included in the article including Maxim, Next Model Management, Gilda Joelle Official Webpage, Healthy Celeb, Artvoice & Busted Coverage are also not fake news outlets. Ciaragomez1 ( talk) 05:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Ciaragomez1, Actually, there are only twelve unique sources, including the ones I have already identified as fake, plus the subject's own website and that of her management, both of which are not independent, and then there is https://www.maxim.com/tag/gilda-joelle which isn't really an article at all. I'll go though the other ones in a bit. Vexations ( talk) 15:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Vexations: The Maxim Article cited & sourced is this one: https://www.maxim.com/women/what-gilda-joelle-wants-2019-12 which is a 13 question interview with Gilda Joelle Osborn. It is independent and it is an article. Ciaragomez1 ( talk) 18:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  It's an interview, not an independent, reliable secondary source. See:WP:PRIMARY Vexations ( talk) 18:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Vexations: Incorrect. Naluda Magazine Contact information listed here: https://www.naludamagazine.com/contact/ Naluda Magazine 4590 MacArthur Blvd, Suite 670, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Listed on the contact page of their site. Contact page also lists an email. Ciaragomez1 ( talk) 05:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Ciaragomez1 ( talk) 05:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  as I explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Markowski It's a little odd that that contact page isn't actually linked from the main page. I did do a search and check the source code. I even tried https://www.naludamagazine.com/contact-us/, but that didn't have any info on it. So yes, I wrongly assumed that they didn't have one. I'm surprised you found it. I also think it's weird that several other companies all have the same address: [4] for example. I think that they're all connected to [5]. Vexations ( talk) 16:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Discounting the fake sources already listed, there does not seem to be any other sources which would help with notability. TheAwesome Hwyh 23:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• delete discounting the fake and unreliable sources would leave this with a grand total of 0 sources. I can find nothing better. Praxidicae ( talk) 20:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete Voicing Praxidicae can’t seem to find any true RS that substantiates any notability claims made. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - another page about a model with terrible sourcing. My partner and I watch all the pageants and modelling vlogs, but you can't take this one seriously as notable. I would have excused this in 2007 but not now; we are a charity, not a free web-host. Bearian ( talk) 19:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

AES School for Girls

AES School for Girls (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Despite my best efforts to find reliable, secondary sources, I was unable to find anything that would enable this subject to meet our general notability guidelines. Perhaps I am wrong, and there are sources out there I missed, or in other languages. Thanks for assuming good faith! Missvain ( talk) 21:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain ( talk) 21:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Missvain ( talk) 21:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Missvain ( talk) 21:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Thanks to the nominator ( Missvain) for nominating/spotting the article. It was already on my watchlist and I was considering to nominate it. Störm (talk) 13:27, 20 January 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 Procedural close. This was the right suggestion even though it didn't happen initially and then the situation of the nominated page changed. No prejudice against a clean speedy renomination. RL0919 ( talk) 04:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Group of Five conferences

Group of Five conferences (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Redirect created with intention to cause conflict with an existing draft. PhanChavez ( talk) 21:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

In fact, Draft: Group of Five used Power Five as a template, and was not in fact "split" from "Mid-major."

Specific details can be found on my talk page: User talk:PhanChavez

It appears that User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse first created the redirect, then updated numerous pages, around 20 edits, pointing to Mid-major.

On the other hand, User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse could have notified the draft created, started a talk page, explained the reasons for this action, instead of causing conflict. None of that was undertaken. But other edits were performed without notification of the in-progress draft having the same name.

I have submitted the redirect for deletion, and I would suggest the Draft be reviewed and approved for creation.

PhanChavez ( talk) 21:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Hey there, they system emailed me saying my name was used in a comment so I came to investigate. I apologize if my redirect edit caused any conflict. I just did a search for "Group of Five Conference" in the search bar at the top and noticed that there was not an article or information on that, so I made a redirect to the information I found helpful. If there is a better spot for it to redirect to, then feel free to change it to a different location. I was just trying to be helpful for anyone searching in the future for the same thing as me. No harm intended and I apologize. Cardsplayer4life 2ndverse ( talk) 02:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Procedural Close - This is a redirect that has been tagged for AFD. The proper forum is Redirects for Discussion. Either Twinkle has failed to recognize a redirect, or a new editor has made the good-faith errors both of not using Twinkle and of nominating this in the wrong forum. Take this to RFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I made a mistake. I took the above Procedural Close by User:Robert McClenon as a literal "This AfD is now closed." Followed the directions on the main page (redirect, proposed for deletion), added the keep note to the Talk page, then removed the delete note from the main page, and I've got Peachy (bot) crawling all over me. Apparently Procedural Close isn't the end of the discussion, and it is not actually closed. (More fun with confusion and lacking explanations for what needs to happen, when, where, in what order, etc.) The previous redirect was turned into an article and does not need to be deleted, per the WP:BB suggestion provided by removal to WP:RFD. PhanChavez ( talk) 05:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I have no idea what is going on above in this AfD, but, much like the Power Five conferences, the Group of Five conferences is a notable college football concept that meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 18:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - It still appears that this AFD should be closed procedurally. I now understand how User:PhanChavez thought that I was closing the AFD procedurally. I will leave it to an administrator to figure out what to do. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

2023 in the Philippines

2023 in the Philippines (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

It isn't normal to have future "XXX in the country" articles. At most it has a single link to the FIBA basketball WC, which is scheduled. If we allow this one, where does it end? Are we going to make a "2027 in North Korea" too? It's all WP:CRYSTAL. Note there is also a 2022 in the Philippines article as well. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)}_{( click me!)} 21:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Article is simply WP:TOOSOON. _SUPER ^ASTIG 23:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The scheduled sporting event is already notable enough to warrant in keeping the article. Shhhhwwww!! ( talk) 15:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - It is similar to 2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup and really there is no policy to delete, it is blindly notable. Shashanksinghvi334 ( talk) 16:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Shashanksinghvi334, that even is a scheduled event, this page merely mentions that event. That event does not alone justify keeping this page. If people are interested in what year the world cup will happen in the Philippines, they will find their way to that page, not to this one. Setting a precedent here of keeping this page will result in a de-facto consensus that WP:CRYSTAL articles on future years for countries is fine. Where it ends is anyone's guess. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)}_{( click me!)} 20:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Move to draft until at least 2021. BD2412 T 04:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Too soon, we don't need an article just to mention a single event. Reywas92 ^Talk 06:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete the 2023 page as too speculative and only one certain event, but keep 2022, which has national elections and many other fairly certain events. Bearian ( talk) 19:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 05:11, 27 January 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. Closing this as a delete due to the struggle to find sources to establish GNG. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain ( talk) 18:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Noctivagus

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

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

Repeatedly moved out of draft by creator in an attempt to WP:GAME. Current article sourcing is atrocious, with 9 refs attributed to their facebook page, the rest being mostly videos, or blog posts. A BEFORE confirmed that no better sources existed online, so I conclude that this fails WP:BAND. Its saving grace could be the two books that are cited, but I couldn't find a copy of either. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 21:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 21:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 21:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - the second book "Marasmo a Cismar" is a poetry book written by one of the band members so no notability there. Music To Die For is legit but I can't check its contents. I had some hope for the Blitz link because Blitz is a prestigious music magazine in Portugal but that reference is only a blog post in their old site. I can't find good sources on them. RetiredDuke ( talk) 22:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete I looked through all of the other language Wikipedia pages and found exactly one source that appeared reliable and which had significant coverage: [6]. Tragically, despite having an editorial board and including independent coverage prior to launching into an interview with the band, they make what appears to be an error (or is it, given the lack of other reliable sources), claiming in a 2011 interview that Noctivagus was about to release its first album. I don't think we can consider this reliable, leaving us far short of GNG even if the second cited book has significant coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:57, 19 January 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 Not Here to Please You. Sandstein 09:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Bounce (Hadouken! song)

Bounce (Hadouken! 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)

No evidence of notability for this download-only single. The cited source in the article is to a sales website, and the only coverage I can find is in Spotify, sales sites, and lyrics databases. WP:GNG fail. Hog Farm ( talk) 21:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm ( talk) 21:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm ( talk) 21:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Not Here to Please You due to a lack of coverage from third-party, reliable sources, but this could be a viable search term. Aoba47 ( talk) 01:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Swietenia Puspa Lestari

Swietenia Puspa Lestari (  | 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 only thing thesubject has atually done, her environmental action, is relatively minor and possibly BLP1E; There does not seem to be any other possible basis for notability. The placement of the list alone is just like any other "100 ...people"--a publicity gimmickThe three BBC items are publicity for their own placement on their list of people whom they want to promote --they all refer to each other. . DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - while her work is laudable, she's basically been in the news for one thing. Bearian ( talk) 19:10, 24 January 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. I'd say there is a very weak consensus to keep, or likely a stronger argument that this results in no consensus. However, because its a biography of a living person, I'm going to err on the side of delete until additional sources are available to support an article on a living person. v/r - T P 13:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Reggie Arnold

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Cannot find significant coverage, only routine game recaps and minor mentions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 19:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 19:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 19:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 19:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable college runningback. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 01:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not appear to have played pro football, fails GNG. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 14:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Played four years at Division I FBS level, and ranks as one of the top players in Arkansas State history (second in school history with 3,933 rushing yards - see here). He gained over 1,000 yards for three consecutive seasons (see here), was a first-team pick on the FWAA's 2006 Freshman All-America team ( here), and a Doak Walker Award candidate in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Finding a lot of significant coverage, including (1) "Record within reach for A-State’s Arnold", Jonesboro Sun, 12/3/09 (1,093 words), (2) "Arnold eager to play his type of game again", Jonesboro Sun, 11/5/09 (869 words), (3) "ASU's Arnold Ready and Waiting", Jonesboro Sun, 10/12/09 (926 words), (4) "Arnold hopes to follow father’s example", Jonesboro Sun, 10/1/09 (898 words), (5) "Arnold makes Doak Walker Award list", Jonesboro Sun, 8/5/09, (6) "ASU's Arnold close to career milestone", Jonesboro Sun, 11/20/08, (7) "Arnold added to Doak Walker Award list", Jonesboro Sun, 8/29/08; (8) "Arnold wants more spring in step", Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 8/13/08 (952 words), (9) "Arnold mainstay in ASU backfield", Jonesboro Sun, 8/5/08 (760 words); (10) "Arnold looking to 'roll up' more big numbers in 07", Paragould Daily Press, 8/13/07 (576 words); (11) "Full speed ahead for ASU's Arnold", Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 8/10/07 (632 words); (12) "A-State's Arnold ready to run", Jonesboro Sun, 7/23/07 (771 words); (13) "ASU's Arnold watching, healing", Jonesboro Sun, 4/3/07; (14) "Arnold getting big push, Competition keeps ASU back on toes", Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (852 words), 9/14/07, (15) Reggie Arnold Named SBC's Freshman Of The Year", KAIT, 12/6/06; (16) "Arnold surpasses 1,000-yard mark", Jonesboro Sun, 11/20/06; and (17) "Blue-collar effort has Arnold leading SBC", Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 9/30/06 (945 words). Cbl62 ( talk) 23:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• This season there were about 80 candidates for the Doak Walker Award ( [7]), so I don't think that is a notable achievement. Eagles  24/7  (C) 23:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• I completely agree that being a Doak Walker candidate is not in itself enough to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. For me, it's the combination of accomplishments (3x 1,000 yard seasons, 2nd all-time in school history, 1st-team freshman All-American, 3x Doak Walker candidate) and abundant coverage in multiple Arkansas media outlets that tips me to finding him notable. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 20:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment all of the source coverage above is from the state of Arkansas, which means he fails WP:NCOLLATH, and I'm extremely skeptical of calling amateur players notable who only received local coverage from their hometown, the region surrounding where they played in college, or routine coverage from the team they were drafted from, as local coverage does not necessarily imply notability. In this instance, though, it seems as if he was one of the best players ever to play at this particular program. My difficulty here is that I think best possible scenario is this gets kept and turned into an article which clearly demonstrates his notability, while the worst possible scenario is if this gets kept and it stays as this terrible stub, which barely satisfies the "sourced BLP requirement." I understand notability is a property of the subject and not the article, and I would say Jones is marginally notable, so a very weak keep from me, but please, someone develop this article a little bit and give this kid the credit he deserves. SportingFlyer T· C 01:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• keep coverage shows a pass of WP:GNG. I agree it needs more development, but that's an editing issue and not a deletion issue.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:18, 15 January 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. This very much appears to be an individual that roughly falls into a grey area in certain notability guidelines, given that he's clearly an important part of a highly notable project, and has received some coverage in reliable sources only in that context, while also receiving some moderately significant coverage (primarily in obituary form) in other sources of less certain reliability. Many calls for improvement have been made, though actual improvement from sources has so far been somewhat limited. This is certainly an individual that could be notable under our guidelines, but there is significant opinion in this discussion that as it stands it may fail the general notability guideline, and more evidence is needed to show he passes it. Reliably-sourced improvement is likely required if this article is to stay around long term, but there is not a consensus to delete it in this discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 17:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Joseph Karr O’Connor

Joseph Karr O’Connor (  | 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 computer scientist who does not satisfy WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I don't know if this is the right place to do this, but I think I've demonstrated "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field."

I'm not sure how to best demonstrate this in a way that will satisfy wikipedia, but certainly on Twitter there has been a global acknowledgement of his contribution. Lots of folks have testified about his contribution to their work in the last week on Twitter @AccessibleJoe - he had a big impact on a sector of the accessibility community for sure. I can't link to it here because Twitter seems to be blacklisted by Wikipedia.

I've pulled from several independent sources so the ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]" doesn't seem to apply either. I'm not sure what is missing. I've reviewed the links you sent and do not see what is missing. Mgifford ( talk) 15:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep and improve being a major contributor to WordPress's accessibility seems like a biggish deal. Worth trying to find more secondary sources that point to his achievements and wrangling the article more into a wiki-style format. Jessamyn ( talk) 00:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Joseph was a very notable figure in web accessibility for over a decade. His effect and reputation affected a generation of developers. Digital accessibility as a whole is a field that hasn't gotten as much attention relative to its contribution to the development of technology, and O'Connor was influential in that community. There are existing Wikipedia pages for other people who similarly participated in W3C or web standards who don't seem to meet the criteria for WP:ANYBIO. Perhaps rather than deletion, we could work a bit more on the article to make the case for inclusion? Shepazu ( talk) 02:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I'm all up for improving this piece.. I am uncomfortable with it still being marked under Articles for deletion. I've added references from IMDB, from the official journal from the California State University, Northridge as well as an acknowledgement from a book. Certainly it can be improved to be closer to the Wikipedia guidelines, but there are a lot of references already to indicate that this is someone who contributed. And yes, for folks outside of the web industry, contributing to WordPress's accessibility is a big deal. It affects 30% of the entire web. Celestina007 can you look at this again? Mgifford ( talk) 04:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 14:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 14:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete as it stands. There appears to be a clear conflict of interest here, and some apparent advertising intent. Deb ( talk) 10:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry Deb advertising for what? I'm a bit confused here. Also unsure where there is a conflict of interest. Mgifford ( talk) 14:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    • You keep calling him "Joseph", which people don't normally do with someone they don't know. If you were closely connected with him, that would be a COI. Also, you've included two external links in the text, which people generally do for advertising purposes - for example, referring readers to an Amazon page where they can buy one of his books or to a site where they can sign up to a conference. Deb ( talk) 14:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply
      • I call lots of people by their first name. That said, I've already said I probably met him once. In no way would I say I was closely connected with him. I am happy to remove the external links. I was just trying to add references in a different way. I do not know that anyone will financially benefit from any of the links. I certainly didn't think it was a big deal to link them one way or another. I will change it though if it makes a difference. Mgifford ( talk) 02:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • You've offered zero evidence of conflict of interest; and the CoI you allege is far from "clear". Do you have any evidence, or would you like to retract the allegation? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment — Mgifford What Deb is saying & what I’m voicing very loudly is that your article is quite promotional & that you may have a possible conflict of interest with the subject of your article. Celestina007 ( talk) 01:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry, what is it promoting? It may be badly written, but I do not understand what it is a promotion of? I do not have a COI. I did meet him once (I think), but am pretty confident that this is not sufficient to block me editing the article. I am stubborn, but that again isn't a reason to block participation. Mgifford ( talk) 01:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. None of the sources in the article are reliable.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete- Not notable. Very poor sourcing. IMDb and various blogs (including wordpress) are not reliable sources. Rusf10 ( talk) 04:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • WordPress's own blog is a valid source for the voice of WordPress; and permissible under Wikipedia policies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    • while it may be permissible to use some content from wordpress as a source, it is still a primary source. We need multiple secondary (not primary) sources to establish notability. Wordpress cannot be used to establish notability. Rusf10 ( talk) 22:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Since when was a company, writing about one of its former employees, in an official company organ, not valid for establishing notability? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Since always. Otherwise every time a company hires someone and issues an official press release, that person would gain auto-notability. We need sources from outside the company where the person used to work.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 22:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep and improve Since Wordpress is 35% of the web https://kinsta.com/wordpress-market-share/ his focus on getting accessible templates definitely improved the web. As well, a podcast is roughly equivalent to a newspaper column and appearing in as many as he did as well as running them? Keep this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.67.77.241 ( talk) 17:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment — It should be noted by the closing administrator & all fellow editors that the IP address above has its first edit as the “Keep & Improve” !vote and as of this comment hasn’t contributed anything outside this. Preety strange. sock puppetry at work here? Celestina007 ( talk) 18:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    • ...or Dynamic IP address allocation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment I'm an Accessibility Contributor to WordPress: this request for deletion was pointed out during our last week meeting and I'm writing because I'm probably the only one in the group with some knowledge of Wikipedia policies.

The problem with this request for deletion is twofold: there is a problem of possible conflict of interest and a problem with the content of the article.

- Possible conflict ot interest

I started contributing to WordPress a couple of years ago and I didn't know about Joseph Karr O’Connor himself before his death, since he left the group in 2016. As such, my point of view is not biased by having known him personally.

Mgifford is a Drupal Core Accessibility Maintainer; he has a profile on WordPress website, but he doesn't contribute to WordPress. As such, I don't think there's a conflict of interest because WordPress and Drupal are independent projects. Instead, the fact that Joseph Karr O’Connor contributions to web accessibility are recognized outside the WordPress community may be an indication that "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field."

Also, when talking about WordPress, there is a difference between WordPress and WordPress.com: the latter is a blogging/hosting platform managed by Automattic Inc., the former is an open source project/software (naming can be really confusing, if you don't know the difference). Joseph Karr O’Connor was a contributor to WordPress open source project (as I am), not a former employee of WordPress.com. I know Wikipedia doesn't consider commercial promotion as the only form of promotion, but I don't think there's any form of promotion.

If there's a conflict of interest, it's about web accessibility (Mgifford also added the accessibility section to the WordPress article), but in this case I would like contributors that claim about a possible conflict of interest to better explain that, as requested by Mgifford.

- Article content

Here there are two problems.

1. Web accessibility experts are widely recognized as such inside the field, but work is generally done in groups and personal contributions are very difficult to register: as such, apart from personal blogs and social medias, it's very difficult to find sources to support the relevance of a single person. Also, Joseph Karr O’Connor was an expert on cognitive and learning disabilities, which is an even more specialized field inside web accessibility. Making a quick search, the only independent, but solid source I was able to find is the draft of this document on the World Wide Web Consortium website, where he is indicated as an "Invited Expert". I would say that this might be a good starting point and that with time it'll be possible to find more independent sources about him.
2. The article was first written a few days after Joseph Karr O’Connor's death, probably in the attept to honour his memory and his contributions to web accessibility in general and WordPress accessibility in particular. There have been some improvements since, they are probably not sufficient at the moment, but consider that this article is the work of a single person. I'd be happy to help with rewriting this article, so that it meets Wikipedia standards, but there's very little time left before the deletion will take place (if it takes place) and I can't do that in the next few hours.

In the end, I think that the article can stay on Wikipedia after some cleanup and adding more sources. I would suggest not to delete this article in the first place, but I explained at the beginning that I am involved in the same project Joseph Karr O’Connor was involved in and I don't want this to be considered as a potential conflict of interest. — Ryokuhi ( talk) 11:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment I did try to do some rewrites on the article when this AfD first came in. I did not know the subject so those edits should be okay. Would love to help with a rewrite with more sources, I do think the subject is noteworthy (and I voted keep above) Jessamyn ( talk) 03:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Still on team Keep and Improve I feel like the criteria this article could meet is

• The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. (Joe is cited by all WordPress accessibility people)
• The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. (Joe was a pioneer in accessible themes for WordPress)

I feel like the problem we're getting into is whether "WordPress accessibility" is a field in and of itself or "important" enough to merit independent acknowledgement of the people who work within it. Secondary issue is that the sources for this sort of accomplishment are largely online and not, say, in major news media or print media. My argument is that they should be and this article has gotten significant enough rewrites that claims of promotion or conflict of interest are no longer relevant (fwiw, I didn't know Joe until helping with the article rewrite, in case that's relevant to my opinions here) Jessamyn ( talk) 20:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep and improve I made revisions to help clarify the significance of the activities and accomplishments that were cited in the article when considering the subject’s notability. I knew the subject of the article, as did many involved in disability inclusion and technology accessibility. I vote to keep and improve the article so that others have the opportunity to further document his vital role in advancing accessibility. Glacialgrandeur
• Comment — It should be noted that the account above Glacialgrandeur was merely created three hours ago(from the time I am making this comment) & came directly to this AFD to !vote a keep. Quite a precocious talent if you ask me. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Note to closing admin — An SPI has been opened here — Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mgifford. Celestina007 ( talk) 00:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep - He seems to be a notable part of a major project- wordpress may not be popular with netizens, but the normie blogger types still use it by the millions. Still, the keep is weak and there's not a lot of coverage for him. Bahb the Illuminated ( talk) 21:11, 29 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 19:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Fahad Abdullah Alasaus

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

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

These sources are a far cry from anything I'd consider reliable. They're mostly churnalism (using that word a lot today) and spammy unreliable sources. Doing an independent search brought nothing better. The IBTimes article looks convincing at first but their editorial standards are not what we expect. I also find it strange that there are almost no sources out of Saudi Arabia or in arabic. Praxidicae ( talk) 19:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non-notable! I don't found any reliable sources about him on Arabic Language, all results about him related to his accounts on the social media only -- Alaa :)..! 19:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails WP:NACTOR. Through my own searches on the topic, I see a clear lack of independent reliable sources for the topic. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 20:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per Norm. Lapablo ( talk) 20:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete; if a source references social media statistics then that is a good indication of unreliability; there does not seem to be many reliable news media in the Saudi film industry. Fails GNG. J 947 ^{( c)}, at 01:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Hyperbolick ( talk) 16:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete – no claim of actual notability made in the article, the sources are far from showing that WP:GNG is met, and I can't find any independent sources. -- bonadea contributions talk 20:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• By the way, the six sources that are currently in the article all have the same text (slightly rearranged or pruned in some cases, but it's still the same text) – so all we have in terms of sources is one single press release, published in six different places. That includes the IBT piece. As the nom says, churnalism. -- bonadea contributions talk 09:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. These are several sources about the same set of events, often thinly plagiarized from the same source. Bearian ( talk) 19:14, 24 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 19:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Turki AlMohsen

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

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

Doesn't appear to be notable, all the sources are churnalism/gossipy cruft and a search under his arabic name gives only 8 hits, none of which are particularly useful to establish notability. This was also previously deleted as Telfaz11 and it appears that someone has engaged in PR shopping to get his name out there. Praxidicae ( talk) 19:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non-notable! I don't found any reliable sources about him on Arabic Language, also as Ref. NO.6 (in Arabic) not mean anything, all results about him related to his accounts on the social media. His article on arwiki translated from this enwiki version before few days (8 Jan. 2020) in competition about Saudi Arabia in arwiki. Now I deleted arwiki article as under non-notability reason -- Alaa :)..! 19:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Another nonsense article for a non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Verna Magazine and Resident Weekly are two of at least 60 fake news sites that are all operated from the same address as apstersmedia.com, coveragelog.com, curiousdesk.com, fabworldtoday.com, globestats.com, newsdistinct.com, newsheadline.us, residentweekly.com and openthenews.com. Fake sources all, operated by a black hat publicity firm. Compare http://www.residentweekly.com/contact-us/ and http://www.vernamagazine.com/contact-us/ Vexations ( talk) 20:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Vexations That is awesome! Do you have a list anywhere on Wiki so I can run a coiBot report? Praxidicae ( talk) 20:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Praxidicae, I'll post a list at User:Vexations/Fake sources. I'm working through all the articles that use any of these sources. I'm looking at [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] It's going to busy at AfD. Or maybe we should just G11 the whole bunch and save us all a lot of time. Vexations ( talk) 20:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Vexations I think perhaps once we get the reports done ( see here for what I've started) we should make a thread...somewhere and perhaps get a CU involved because I suspect this is going to have a plethora of various UPE editing groups and then yeah, I'd say g11/g5 the lot where no other sources exist and the rest we AFD. Praxidicae ( talk) 20:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non- notable person and probably created by a WP:UPE. They're only two outstanding sources which have been spotted by an editor as fake. Fails WP:RS. Lapablo ( talk) 20:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete with thanks to Praxidicae for starting the AfD – I was going to, but had to leave my computer for a bit. As curious as I am about the place that is known for circumstances, it is very clear that none of the sources is any good. Also clear COI/UPE editing (none of the sources mentions a birthdate, yet the article creator somehow knew it...) -- bonadea contributions talk 23:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete; the non-fake news articles ( these four "news" articles) seem to all be paid promotions. They also reference his youtube channel's statistics to a major extent, which is not very indicative of a source that heralds some contributions towards GNG given that his youtubing career isn't his main profession. J 947 ^{( c)}, at 01:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - editors, producers, and writers for comedy shows are run of the mill, unless they win a major award or garner significant coverage, but reliable sources are lacking here. Bearian ( talk) 19:19, 24 January 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 nomination withdrawn and no others supporting deletion. (non-admin closure) ansh. 666 20:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

2020 VCDL Lobby day

2020 VCDL Lobby day (  | 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:CRYSTALBALL. If the protests happened then we can have an article about it SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 19:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 19:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 19:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• • Comment I believed that the article needs clean up rather than delete it and we'd better waiting for the rally happens. Mariogoods ( talk) 02:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep There was national coverage in the lead-up to this political rally, and intense coverage on the day of the rally. massive national coverage = notability. IceFishing ( talk) 17:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep It's all over the news in the US. I agree that the article should be cleaned up though. -- Deansfa ( talk) 19:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, although as a resident of the DC area I may be getting more of it in the press than others, so my view of the circumstance may be skewed to begin with. Needs work, but it should be kept. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao ^{Che dicono a Signa?} _{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• I withdraw my nomination -- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 19:11, 20 January 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) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 14:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Fatma Chamakh-Haddad

Fatma Chamakh-Haddad (  | 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:PROF, no awards or honours, no notable works or researchs, and no substantial impact outside academia, just a high professor in university. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The sources already in the article include at least three works directly about her, and another with in-depth coverage of her (I can't tell about the remaining reference, as it is unlinked and doesn't have her name on the title, but my guess is that it is also non-trivial, based on how much it is used as a source in the article). This shows a clear pass of WP:GNG. I don't think the low citation counts on Google Scholar are a concern, given that (1) we can use a different notability criterion, GNG, (2) citation counts in the humanities are often low; they are not a good way to measure impact in the humanities; (3) she wrote in French, several decades ago, and both of those factors are also likely to make her representation in databases of online English-language literature more sparse. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • PS I found and added to the article two more sources, in-depth published reviews of her dissertation. And I found an online copy of the fifth reference, which is as expected also in-depth. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep: meets WP:BASIC per sources already in the article. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, meets WP:BASIC as noted above, from preamble of peeps Additional criteria - "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, ...". Coolabahapple ( talk)
• Keep There's a good case for meeting the general wiki-notability guideline. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Definitely meets GNG. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 23:04, 24 January 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 List of Benidorm characters. RL0919 ( talk) 04:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Janice Garvey

Janice Garvey (  | 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 does not meet WP:NFICTION/ WP:GNG. DarkGlow ( talk) 18:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to either Benidorm (TV series) or List of Benidorm characters where the character is already mentioned. There does not appear to be enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG requirements, but this could be a viable search term so a redirect may be helpful. Aoba47 ( talk) 01:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirect because it's WP:ALLPLOT. No-one ever put in the work to make proper (and due-weight) character summaries, and it's doubtful someone ever will, so I am unsure if it's even wise to keep the redirect around. – sgeureka ^{t• c} 22:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Notability is not established. TTN ( talk) 11:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Claire Desjardins

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

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

WP:ARTIST fail. Notability for WP:GNG is quite weak, so bringing it here. The exhibitions section looks well sourced, but each item is actually an event announcement. If this is a page on a notable artist, one might ask why there are no art reviews to be found-- just puffy profile pieces. Notable artists have reviews and/or are in collections. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete the lack of actual reviews suggests that she is not in fact a notable artist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete As per nom, and no substantial improvement since my previous AfD nom of this article. Worth noting that the creator's contribs appear to be quite SPA and/or UPE -ish. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:36, 24 January 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 Mount Jiuhua. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Dabeilou Temple

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

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

Doesn't meet wp:notability. Boleyn ( talk) 18:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Mount Jiuhua. According to the Mount Jiuhua article on Chinese Wikipedia, there are 93 temples on the mountain, including several which are historic and might merit their own articles. This one doesn't appear to be one of those, but might merit a passing in the mention in the Mount Jiuhua article per sources such as this etc ---- Pontificalibus 12:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Pontificalibus.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:29, 20 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 19:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Ghost Light (band)

Ghost Light (band) (  | 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 musical band that lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before i conducted shows no evidence of true notability as they are merely discussed in passing when they release new music. Each member of the band fail WP:GNG & WP:BASIC. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Since the AfD notice, I've added more references and expanded the article. Also note that 2 members of the band have existing pages. Jfricker ( talk) 21:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• keep Nom appears to have missed the fact that two established musicians are in this band. Beyond that, the album and shows have been reviewed,and the band - its formation, members - has gotten reported coverage, some of which I just added to the page. IceFishing ( talk) 12:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep as has reliable sources coverage that has been added to the article such as Dallas Observer, PopMatters and Mint newspaper so therefore pass WP:GNG and deserve to be included, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per IceFishing and Atlantic306. — Hunter Kahn 02:26, 26 January 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. WP:REFUND applies. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Nicole Arnaboldi

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

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

V successful, but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 18:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Amjad Majid Al-Saboory

Amjad Majid Al-Saboory (  | 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 puffed up resume for a non-notable editor. It's sourced to unreliable sources that engage in churnalism and vanity spam, such as those sources found here. A search in Arabic returns no results and the same for English. Praxidicae ( talk) 18:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete an overly promotional article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Mia Scozzafave

Mia Scozzafave (  | 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 actress, sourced to vanity publications and unreliable sources. A search of Scozzafave shows nothing beyond the normal rehashed PR ad unreliable sources pointed out here. The rest are casting announcements which are meaningless. Praxidicae ( talk) 18:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails WP:NACTOR as no criterion is met/satisfied. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not enough sources for a page at the moment. Fails WP:RS. Lapablo ( talk) 20:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I see a lot of enthusiasm to delete my article - it was my very first significant contribution for Wikipedia and I had less experience back then. But I really don't understand now how it works as my article had been reviewed and accepted by three other editors including Onel5969 (that guy retired already), Robby and Sagotreespirit. Those editors didn't ask an questions and didn't dispute that article. Now, it the other way around and someone already cut the links just to show the article is even less notable. I understand it is a free community, but it just makes no sense to me and it puzzles me how Wikipedia has any articles when all the new Wikipedians are discouraged to contribute. -- Parksbows ( talk) 20:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I am sorry you feel that way however the requirements are made very clear when publishing articles particularly about BLPs and the WP:ONUS is on the creator to make sure it's appropriately sourced and notable but also do your due diligence in assessing the sources for reliability and making sure that their editorial standards are clear. this is completely unreliable, so is this with an added dash of gossipy spam, also completely unreliable and fake per this considering "Claudia Pasos" is actually Regina Casé. Would you like me to continue? Because there are several more identical fake sources like this. Praxidicae ( talk) 20:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete and salt - All new Wikipedians aren't discouraged from contributing, but all public relations spammers are. This article needs to be removed and the creator blocked unless they disclose their clear paid editing ties. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Hello, Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans. No paid editing was involved and I clearly declared it on my page. As you could see by my previous comment, I asked the community how it happens that the editors first accept the article (3 editors) and then comes a new team and vote on deletion and also accuse the new comer in all the Wikipedia sins. Kafka would write a great story about Wikipedia, it is a pity he is not alive and I'm afraid if I did any changes to his page, I would be blocked. For now I can only say this: the first editors (who accepted the page) could just have moved the page to the draft (or delete) and explain what was wrong with it. Now, it looks like a circus. And one more thing - just to make everyone feel better - I do not object the deletion if the community finds the article not fit for Wikipedia. It was really nice to meet you all warm and nice people here.-- Parksbows ( talk) 02:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Parksbows: We are dealing with a large breadth of spam on our site, so it would be wonderful if you could explain what motivated you to write this article, and to use fake/spam sources such as Soul Brazil? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans: Wikipedia welcomes new contributions but has thousand of rules that take a lifetime to learn. I came with the best intentions and curiosity was my only motivation to start as I had no experience in good and bad references and couldn’t see why the article was poor (that cannot be said about those who reviewed and accepted it) . You’ve been on Wikipedia for how long? Since 2006? When I created the page, I was here just a few days and I didn’t know much about good or bad links. See, the websites flood Internet with articles and most of them are spam — covert advertising and promotion is just everywhere. Only when I started writing encyclopedia articles and search for good sources, I began to realize how many promotional articles are everywhere and how hard it is to find a neutral, reliable source. It takes time and experience to acquire this knowledge and I’m sure that everyone at the beginning made some errors. Furthermore, I think the problem wasn’t so big back in 2004 when Wikipedia came to life. What is more interesting is that the Wikipedia community puts all the «burden of guilt» on the shoulders of the inexperienced editor when it was much easier to explain it from the beginning when it was reviewed and accepted. It seems like that I spend more time on explaining my actions than on editing. -- Parksbows ( talk) 23:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ Parksbows: Many new users that start articles using spam sources are here being paid by blackhat SEO firms to increase people's visibility. I'm not trying to be a hardass on you... I just want to make sure you're clearly aware we don't allow paid editing without disclosure on our site. I understand it may have been frustrating to go through this process, and to have your actions so severely questioned. But part of the job of keeping this site maintained involves looking deeply into suspicious actions that may be influenced by outside special interests. As long as you ensure to hold to our sourcing policies here on out, and are being honest about how you used that source, I think you'll be a positive asset to the project. Thank you for explaining your actions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Parksbows:, I understand the dejected feeling you are probably experiencing given that you have put in time and effort to creating an article and it is already being considered for deletion. I, too, have experienced the exact same thing with an article I wrote; my article was deleted. What I have done, however, is to create a "draft" of the article, and I'd suggest that you do too—that is, Draft:Mia Scozzafave. That will allow you to continue to work on the article. It seems that the actress may become more notable in the near future (as I stated below), and so I would encourage you to keep working on it and adding to it with the aim of getting it up to the standards required. I wish you the best. Dflaw4 ( talk) 13:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete: It's good to see that sources have at least been provided (regardless of their reliability), but the article seems WP:TOOSOON to me. The actress appears to have several upcoming roles and may become notable in the near future, but I don't think she quite meets the notability standards for actresses yet. Dflaw4 ( talk) 07:45, 23 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 18:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Dj ILJANO

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

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

Only sources are vanity publishers and completely unreliable. He doesn't appear to have done anything to warrant any significant coverage, so the claims of notability here are pretty meaningless in the absence of sources to back it up. Praxidicae ( talk) 18:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• delete as Praxidicae notes. It would also seem that the subject uploaded the image to Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete a non-notable DJ. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete and SALT all possible variations of the guy's name. When you see weird capitalization in the article title, that is an indication of previous deletions under different titles, and this guy has already been deleted at least twice. See first nomination and second nomination, and there could be more under even more titles. His notability has not magically appeared since his last try. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 23:21, 20 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 18:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

DJ WilSAF

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

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

Similar to the reasons in this afd, there are virtually no actual reliable sources to support any statements in this article nor has he received any significant coverage. Praxidicae ( talk) 18:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete We work with reliable sources to verify notability claims but subject of our discussion lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The source currently at footnote #3 in the article (Tribune Byte) looks to be fairly reliable, as he has received a little media notice in his home country, but that is the only source that I would consider to be even partially useful for establishing his notability. Everything else to be found are basic retail/streaming entries and directory-like introductions, and the article overall appears to be an attempted promotion. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 23:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I’m mobile so unfortunately can link but tribunebyte is not even a real news site. Praxidicae ( talk) 01:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Quite a sock draw we have here. PR, did sources. Delete this spam. duffbeerforme ( talk) 02:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not notable and very probably self promotion.   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   05:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC) reply

He is notable here in Sierra Leone which is why I decided to work on his page if you all read the sources currently at footnote #1 and #4 you can see that these are two reliable sources from the country WikiShr3dda ( talk) 06:06, 23 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 18:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Jan Jens

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

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

GNG fail. Over at the AfD for Baggio White, we discovered the use of a sort of publicity farm of websites such as the One World Herald and the American Reporter. These sites have identical editorial policies and fake head office addresses. Seeing these sources are in use here, I checked notability and it seems to be all based on paid placement publicity on sites like the above. Another of the sources, isstories.com is obviously paid publicity. A search could not find any reliable coverage. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 17:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete [ [18]] claims that "Jatina Group Miami ... has been one of the fastest growing businesses for the last two years." It also mentions that the company has four employees.
  [ [19]] is actually an article from popdiaries.com, a blog
  [ [20]] This post has not been vetted or endorsed by BuzzFeed's editorial staff.
  [ [21]
  openthenews.com or is it The Open News? (they seem confused is a fake source. Their office is supposedly at 445 E Ohio Street, Unit 2708 Chicago, IL 60611. They share that address with Champions Buzz, Fir Curious, [ Data Source Hub, Apsters Media, Tech News Vison, [ Verna Magazine, US times now and a bunch of others, that I'll look at later. This ought to be enough. This is one article of a (large?) number that have been created by undisclosed paid editors who operate a network of fake sources to produce fake citations for their paid articles. A sockpuppet investigation may be in order. Vexations ( talk) 19:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

these sites also list the above address:ustimesnow.com precisejournal.com vernamagazine.com globestats.com technewsvision.com newsmono.com fabworldtoday.com entertainmentpaper.com. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 19:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete a minor person in business. Just starting up a company does not make you notable, especially when it has under 10 employees. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:27, 20 January 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. BD2412 T 04:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Christian History Institute

Christian History Institute (  | 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 reads like an advertisement. The references are mainly affiliated with the group. There are references to non-notable awards, but no third party coverage of these awards. Google shows lots of sales pages, a few namechecks, but no substantive coverage in reliable independent secondary sources that I can use to tone down the article. Guy ( help!) 08:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 08:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 08:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 08:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep -- It appears to be a small Christian publishing house, which has continued since the retirement of the founder. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep long-established Christian publishing house. Lots of sources available over the decades in newspaper archives. IceFishing ( talk) 23:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• The comment below was entered on this discussion's talk page. I have copied it. IceFishing ( talk) 18:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note, among Christian entertainment producers, some of the awards dismissed as insignificant are highly regarded. Should the Christian Post 2017 article about Christian History Institute's CHI Torchlighter series be cited? Christian Post is in no way connected with CHI ^[1] Would the article be improved if it mentioned that the Evangelical Press Association has given several awards to CHI's magazine Christian History. EPA is a pretty well-known organization. Two 2019 awards were ^{[2] [3]} PastPicker4tA ( talk) 16:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC). (this ends the copy of the incorrectly placed comment). reply

^ 
https://www.christianpost.com/news/torchlighters-heroes-of-the-faith-cartoons-prove-21st-century-kids-enjoy-church-history.html


^ 
https://www.evangelicalpress.com/2019-awards-of-excellence/ 


^ 
https://www.evangelicalpress.com/2019-higher-goals-awards/ 

• Keep per IceFishing - long established publisher - looks to have been around for decades and there are sources about it available. Bookscale ( talk) 12:29, 25 January 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain ( talk) 18:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

SCAN (auditory processing disorders)

SCAN (auditory processing disorders) (  | 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 this is a copy of an email (see [22]), it is a copyright violation as it copies another’s work without their permission. I previously PRODed this article, and the evidence that it was an email was removed, but this still doesn’t remove the fact that this is an email. And besides, it is wholly comprised of someone’s views expressed through an email. Willbb234 ^Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 10:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 ^Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 10:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I am new to this process so I hope these comments are appropriate. I understand there is a discussion by some group to keep or delete this discussion of the SCAN auditory processing test battery. I hope that the group does not delete it. My reasons are that I attempted, hopefully successfully, to write a discussion of SCAN using impartial language, simply discussing it, and presenting references that support whatever was written in the entry about the test.

Secondly, the SCAN auditory processing test battery is an important tool in the armamentarium of people interested in diagnosing auditory processing disorders, and the proposed entry is a helpful way for individuals who do not read the audiology literature to become aware of and familiar with this tool.

The test battery has been available since the late 1980s with two revisions that improve the measure in multiple ways. The refereed peer review literature includes articles that describe the SCAN battery as the most used test for auditory processing in the USA, so the audiology profession is generally familiar with the test and feel it is valid and reliable with acceptable sensitivity and specificity.

Thank you for considering these comments as you review the submission. If I can add any information that would be helpful I would be happy to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UIowagrad ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete as copyvio and possibly as recreation of previously-deleted material (could someone with the appropriate access check on that?). XOR'easter ( talk) 17:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, the first revision if this page is identical to the deleted version (I was the one who requested the speedy), Willbb234 ^Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 17:44, 19 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Clinic management system

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

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

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder ( talk) 10:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per above - though would also be okay with a redirect to Medical practice management software. Jmertel23 ( talk) 12:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 17:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete or redirect to Medical practice management software per Jmertel23

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. Participants provide some decent sources of lists, and group articles, discussing various people as recluses. This supports the existence of the list on purely notability grounds via WP:LISTN, and I do not think the critiques raised about some of those sources reach the point of invalidating them as a whole. Those arguing to delete do raise some understandable problems with the article - "recluse" is frequently a negative term, and so BLP concerns absolutely must be paramount - but good sourcing solves the issue of negative information about living persons, making this overall a content and sourcing issue for the list rather than an existence issue. Ultimately this article needs to be improved with a more specific set of inclusion criteria, and a better introduction that details exactly what those criteria are. Good arguments have been made that a list like this can exist based on WP:LISTN, but very valid criticisms are made that the list as it stands is dangerous from a BLP perspective, potentially somewhat arbitrary, and is struggling to demonstrate why it's better than a category. All of these concerns are technically content issues that could be solved by editing, but if they aren't, I think there's a strong argument that the list is not helpful and it could validly be re-nominated in future. ~ mazca ^talk 17:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC) reply

List of recluses

List of recluses (  | 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 can't see any logical reason to list people who supposedly share a somewhat trivial and subjective personality trait such as reclusion. Additionally, I have this gut feeling there may be a WP:BLP issue regarding some of the people listed here. Vaporgaze ( talk) 20:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Vaporgaze ( talk) 20:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vaporgaze ( talk) 20:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep as the list's creator. Rolling Stone, Esquire, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, HuffPost, Times Union, etc. etc. all discuss recluses as a group. To paraphrase Greta Garbo, this list vants to be let alone. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Understandably the creator is going to defend their work. But while it's a nice bit of information, it's trivial at best and an article is not really needed as it's fueled off listicles such as above, all of which are based on someone's personal interpretation of the term. It has the potential to get out of control quickly with editors' varying opinions of the word and consequential namedropping whenever (insert name here) and "recluse" are spotted in the same paragraph of some random article. Not worth the inevitable headache. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Reply. Being a recluse is not "a somewhat trivial and subjective personality trait". Greta Garbo and Howard Hughes, just to name two, are extremely well-known for their reclusiveness, and their bios would be fatally incomplete without it. As for Beemer69's objections, the list satisfies WP:LISTPEOPLE. It is covered by reliable sources and consists of notable individuals. It goes well beyond "someone's personal interpretation" when many journalists, writers, etc. all agree. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep meets our criteria for WP:NLIST and WP:LISTN and the article has WP:RSs. We keep such lists to serve the readers and to aide in navigation. There is no BLP issue; also many on the list are deceased. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good rationale to delete. Also WP:PRESERVE is a policy on Wikipedia. Wm335td ( talk) 21:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Arbitrary, vague, and subjective list criteria and concerns over WP:BLP are valid -- we wouldn't have a list of people with mental/physical health issues or a list of eccentric people and there would be a lot of overlap with people added to this. Citing ( talk) 18:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Rebuttal. BLP states "contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced" (bolding mine) should be removed. I've vetted the more questionable references, and all the people (dead or alive) are well-sourced. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I removed some more. An important thing to note is that in labelling someone a recluse, journalists often only mean that person is exhibiting some aspects of reclusive behaviour for a period. Note the quote in the Telegraph source you gave above "My belief is that ‘recluse' is a code word generated by journalists ... meaning, ‘doesn't like to talk to reporters.'" Labelling someone a recluse because they don't talk to reporters or stop working after retirement is not something we should be doing. Looking at non-journalistic reliable sources, a Google Books search reveals the term is used principally to refer to hermits, where we already have a list of notable religious recluses.---- Pontificalibus 06:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete The word can be used to describe a hermit who willingly spends their entire adult life in isolation. It seems it can also be used to describe someone in public life who declines a few interviews in retirement. Listing both with no distinction simply because a source uses the word does not make an encyclopedia article. It would be like having a List of angry people, and claiming that every entry is ok because it's supported by a source stating that the person was angry. ---- Pontificalibus 21:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Clarityfiend, an experienced editor who knows what they are doing. The delete votes seem to be of the slippery slope type. Bearian ( talk) 16:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• STRONG DELETE per WP:NOTCATALOG and objections raised above. The page for recluse already provides examples, which do not need to be complete in order to be valid. But attempting to maintain a running list of notable people requires efforts toward both accuracy and completeness, something not only difficult but also privacy-invasive toward living persons. Also, a list regarding character traits or behaviors should be given sensitivity similar to how religion or sexual orientation are regarded in WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:BLPCAT. As demonstrated in this AfD discussion, even agreeing on what is a reliable source for whether a person is genuinely a “recluse” would be difficult. I second User:Pontificalibus, it would be like having a List of angry people, and using sources where someone else claimed that person was angry. Inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, both for being a catalog, and for being a catalog of perceived personality traits. Cannot see how it wouldn’t be arbitrary and subjective, unless it’s kept so short it can just be a list of examples on the recluses page. Shelbystripes ( talk) 20:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Rebuttal. It is not the same as List of angry people, unless those people were described as angry over the course of decades of media coverage. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

So it’s okay to put someone on a “list of angry people” if I can find news articles describing them as angry over an extended period of time? One might be during a contentious divorce, another after slander that led to a lawsuit, and a third not long after they’ve been fired... but hey, they’ve been described as “angry” several times by journalists over several years, so of course they belong on a list of angry people! (This is sarcasm to illustrate how horrible this entire idea is.) Shelbystripes ( talk) 03:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Don't be silly. If you can find people who are well-known for being consistently angry over a long period of time, not just intermittently, AND journalists who've discussed them as a group, then maybe, just maybe you'd have an argument. But there aren't, and you don't. Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

You seriously want to argue there’s no such thing as people who are well-known for being consistently angry? You really want to seem that naive? Regardless, such a list would end up populated with false positives—the intermittent examples falsely interpreted as “being angry,” which you agree would exist—just like this list would. It’s not possible to objectively create a complete list like this, not without inherently including false positives and violating WP:BLP in the process. And if it’s not meant to be a comprehensive list, it’s not objective and complete to the entry title, and therefore it’s not encyclopedic. All you’re describing there are notable examples, which already exist on the Recluse page itself. Shelbystripes ( talk) 07:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Since when is completeness a reason not to have a list? Also, it doesn't violate BLP; the sourcing is strong. As WP:LISTPEOPLE states, a list has to meet the following requirements (1) The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, and (2) The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources. Check, check, and checkmate. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

That’s the criteria for whether to list an individual person on a list, not whether the list itself is appropriate. You seem to be missing the obvious concept just a little further up the page, which clearly applies here: “Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value.” If something is too general or broad, then it’s difficult to maintain a complete and accurate list. Shelbystripes ( talk) 07:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

28 people and 3 fictional characters are too general? Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Another sign that being a recluse is a notable trait: List of people known as the Recluse, which I've just created. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Congratulations, you created a list page with a clearly definable criteria for people who should and should not be listed. And that specific list page makes deletion of this one even more appropriate, since the two overlap in purpose and this one has overly vague inclusion criteria. Shelbystripes ( talk) 07:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:LISTOVERLAP isn't a valid reason for deletion. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Pontificalibus. It's too vague and thus raises WP:BLP concerns. Recluse may cover a few notable examples and comment on them. – sgeureka ^{t• c} 11:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Reply. If I alone call Donald Trump the most prolific liar in the known universe, that's a BLP violation. When the press en masse does it (Fox News excepted), it isn't. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete: listing people (and characters) that already have articles devoted to them is pointless. What might be preferable is to create a category for such articles. Sweetpool50 ( talk) 11:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Rebuttal. So all Category:Lists of people and Category:Lists of fictional characters should be deleted? Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep, but article needs a proper introduction and specific rules need to defined for inclusion that don't violate WP:BLP. Igbo ( talk) 13:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - there are sufficient sources linked above (and which I'm seeing in my own search) to show that this passes WP:LISTN. All of the other issues raised here can be hashed out on the talk page (if there are BLP issues, limit it to dead people, for example). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "recluses" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".
  
  Sources

  1. "Encounter article". Encounter. Vol. 70. 1988. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  2. Trachtenberg, Robert (November 1989). "A Who's Who of Great American Recluses — and a Visit With the Richest, Wackiest Hermit of Them All". Spy. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  3. Fu, Li-tsui Flora (2009). Framing Famous Mountains: Grand Tour and Mingshan Paintings in Sixteenth-century China. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. p. 18. ISBN  978-962-996-329-3. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  4. Shirane, Haruo, ed. (2011). The Demon at Agi Bridge and Other Japanese Tales. Translated by Watson, Burton. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN  978-0-231-15244-0. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  5. Yampolsky, Philip B., ed. (1990). Selected Writings of Nichiren. Translated by Watson, Burton. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 391. ISBN  0-231-07260-0. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  6. Sadler, Arthur Lindsay (1962). A Short History of Japan. Sydney: Angus & Robertson. p. 109. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  7. "Journal of Japanese Studies article". Journal of Japanese Studies. 21. 1995. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  8. Tanner, Norman (2009). The Ages of Faith: Popular Religion in Late Medieval England and Western Europe. London: I.B. Tauris. p. 124. ISBN  978-1-84511-760-3. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  9. Jones, John B. (1976). Offa's Dyke Path. London: Office of Public Sector Information. p. 92. ISBN  978-0-11-700350-7. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  10. Collis, Louise (1983). Memoirs of a Medieval Woman. New York: HarperCollins. p. 27. ISBN  0-06-090992-7. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  11. Jackson, Samuel Macauley (1889). The Concise Dictionary of Religious Knowledge and Gazetteer. New York: Christian Literature Company. p. 736. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  12. Parsons, Alice Beal (1946). I Know What I'd Do. Boston: E. P. Dutton. p. 16. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  13. Hartmann, Sieglinde (2013). "Bridal Mysticism and the Politics of the Anchorhold: Dorothy of Montau". In Innes-Parker, Catherine; Yoshikawa, Naoë Kukita (eds.). Anchoritism in the Middle Ages: Texts and Traditions. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. p. 101. ISBN  978-0-7083-2601-5. Retrieved 2020-01-25.

  Sources with quotes

  "Encounter article". Encounter. Vol. 70. 1988. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The article notes: Of 42 leading French intellectuals listed by Lire in 1981, only 14 have never appeared on the programme, and only a very few have turned Pivot down: they include such notable recluses as Samuel Beckett, E. M. Cioran, René Char, and Henri Michaux. Trachtenberg, Robert (November 1989). "A Who's Who of Great American Recluses — and a Visit With the Richest, Wackiest Hermit of Them All". Spy. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: The classical pianist Glenn Gould may have had the dramatic integrity to drop dead before his comeback, but other notable recluses have been less selfish with their presence. Brian Wilson resurfaced as a thinner, better-groomed nut; Marlene Dietrich narrated a movie about herself (and followed up with an autobiography); and then came the rumor that former first lady turned career girl Jacqueline Onassis was trying to sign ultra-recluse Greta Garbo to write an autobiography for Doubleday. Fu, Li-tsui Flora (2009). Framing Famous Mountains: Grand Tour and Mingshan Paintings in Sixteenth-century China. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. p. 18. ISBN  978-962-996-329-3. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: At the same time as the Daoists and Buddhists were charting their sacred geography, famous mountains began to feature in mountain records (shanji) composed by resident recluses, both Buddhist and Daoist. Huiyuan, for instance, was credited with writing the first record of Mount Lu. The first two records of Mount Heng were written by the famous Daoist Xu Lingqi (?–474) and Zong Ce, a recluse who refused office toward the beginning of the Southern Qi dynasty (479–502). Shirane, Haruo, ed. (2011). The Demon at Agi Bridge and Other Japanese Tales. Translated by Watson, Burton. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN  978-0-231-15244-0. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: A Companion in Solitude (Kankyo no tomo, ca. 1222) is a two-volume collection of Buddhist setsuwa written by Priest Keisei (1189–1268). The twenty-one stories in volume 1 are about noted recluses and priests such as Kūya (903–972). Yampolsky, Philip B., ed. (1990). Selected Writings of Nichiren. Translated by Watson, Burton. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 391. ISBN  0-231-07260-0. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: Hui's mother, Empress Lu, persuaded four eminent recluses who lived on Mt. Shang to become his advisors. They were known as Master Tung-yuan, Scholar Lu-li, Ch'i Li- chi, and Master Hsia-huang. Sadler, Arthur Lindsay (1962). A Short History of Japan. Sydney: Angus & Robertson. p. 109. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: To this period belong three eminent recluses: Saigyo Hoshi, author of some famous verses; Kamo Chomei, who wrote the Hojoki; and Yoshida Kenko, who penned those entertaining essays and comments on life called the Tsure-zure- gusa or "Journal of Japanese Studies article". Journal of Japanese Studies. 21. 1995. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The article notes: In the inscription Taihaku alludes to two famous recluses from the Chinese poetic tradition, T'ao Ch'ien and Wang Wei (701 -61). Tanner, Norman (2009). The Ages of Faith: Popular Religion in Late Medieval England and Western Europe. London: I.B. Tauris. p. 124. ISBN  978-1-84511-760-3. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: Attention has concentrated on the writings of the two most famous recluses - Richard Rolle (c. 1300-1349), who lived as a hermit in various places and wrote extensive spiritual works in both Latin and English, and Julian of Norwich - and upon the three most important rules written for recluses: Jones, John B. (1976). Offa's Dyke Path. London: Office of Public Sector Information. p. 92. ISBN  978-0-11-700350-7. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The article notes: A little above the town is Plas Newydd, the black and white timbered home of Eleanor Butler and Sarah Ponsonby, the Ladies of Llangollen, two famous recluses from the Irish aristocracy who settled here in 1791. Collis, Louise (1983). Memoirs of a Medieval Woman. New York: HarperCollins. p. 27. ISBN  0-06-090992-7. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: She had had read to her a number of books written by famous recluses, such as Hilton's Scale of Perfection, Rolle's Stimulus Amoris and Incendium Amoris, and St Bridget of Sweden's Celestial Revelations. Jackson, Samuel Macauley (1889). The Concise Dictionary of Religious Knowledge and Gazetteer. New York: Christian Literature Company. p. 736. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: Port Koyal des Champs now became known principally as the refuge of a great number of famous recluses, among whom were I'alla the physician, Fontaine the historian, Arnauld d'Audilly, the translator of the fathers, the Duke de Luynes, Pascal, etc. Parsons, Alice Beal (1946). I Know What I'd Do. Boston: E. P. Dutton. p. 16. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: So she signed a contract for a book on America's two most famous recluses, Hawthorne and Emily Dickinson, bought a lot with her advance royalty, and took out a Building and Loan mortgage to build a house on the lot. Hartmann, Sieglinde (2013). "Bridal Mysticism and the Politics of the Anchorhold: Dorothy of Montau". In Innes-Parker, Catherine; Yoshikawa, Naoë Kukita (eds.). Anchoritism in the Middle Ages: Texts and Traditions. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. p. 101. ISBN  978-0-7083-2601-5. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: Dorothy of Montau belongs among the most notable recluses of medieval Europe.

  
  
  General notability guideline

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
  
  WP:BLPCAT concerns can be addressed by modifying the inclusion criteria to exclude living people
  
  Editors have raised valid BLP concerns about labeling a living person as a "recluse". WP:BLPCAT says, "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation" and "These principles apply equally to lists ... that ... suggest that any living person has a poor reputation."

  Recluse#Causes says:

  There are many potential reasons for becoming a recluse, including, but are not limited to: a personal philosophy may reject consumer society; a mystical religious outlook may involve becoming a hermit or an anchorite; a survivalist may be practicing self-sufficiency; a criminal might hide away from people to avoid detection by police; or a misanthrope may be unable to tolerate human society.

  The first three causes do not "suggest a person has a poor reputation". The last two causes (saying someone may be a criminal or a misanthrope) do "suggest a person has a poor reputation". So it is likely that including living people on this list violates WP:BLPCAT.

  But that would not require deletion of the entire list. It would only require that we modify the inclusion criteria to exclude living people. This modification of the list's inclusion criteria is permitted by Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people, which says:

  In other cases, editors choose even more stringent requirements, such as already having an article written (not just qualifying for one), or being notable specifically for reasons related to membership in this group. This is commonly used to control the size of lists that could otherwise run to hundreds or thousands of people, such as the List of American film actresses.

  The list's inclusion criteria is a content decision that can be made through an RfC on the article's talk page.

  Cunard ( talk) 02:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

But all these texts are, without exception, only sources for the use of the word 'recluse'. They don't demonstrate that the various people about whom that word has been used form a coherent group that can be the subject of a list. – Uanfala (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I provided six reliable sources that discuss recluses as a group. Bottom line There are at least five or six people who are pretty much universally labelled recluses: Garbo, Hughes, Dickinson, Salinger and Harper Lee. The Unabomber, the trio who stayed in a hotel suite for decades, and the inspiration for Miss Havisham are also solid entries. That's more than enough for a list. You could argue about the rest, but AFD is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. While we can all find sources of people describing them as a recluse (eg: Scott Walker), I can't see any evidence that there are sources about lists of notable recluses as a whole. In particular, the sources produced by Cunard seem to be passing mentions of recluses as part of other subjects as opposed to sources that document recluses directly, while the ones from Clarityfiend appear to be a bit of light humour such as "How much of the Syd Barrett factor has John Deacon got?" which isn't really suitable for a general article. Perhaps a category would be more appropriate? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep* Facially meets NList with multiple pop culture publications on it. The BLP issue is real though, and that makes it weak. Bahb the Illuminated ( talk) 21:24, 29 January 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 agreement about whether to delete outright or to reduce to a list of notable synthesizers. Sandstein 13:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

List of classic synthesizers

List of classic synthesizers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely uncited (and has been for many years, possibly since it was created in 2008). No criteria for what constitutes a "classic" synthesizer. Seems to be a dump of original research based on what various editors reckon are classic synths. Popcornduff ( talk) 08:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CptViraj ( 📧) 10:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete, no clear inclusion criteria, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 19:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:SYNTHESIS (oh, the irony). Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Rename to List of synthesizers and do the usual things to narrow the scope of the list to those in the article, which already follow the rule of being not merely notable but influential. The lede addresses this distinction already: <synthesizers> "which marked a turning point in musical sound or style". "Classic" is of course objectionable, but I am quite sure we all agree for the most part on "notable", which has not been raised as an objection by anyone including the nominator, probably because almost all of the scores of synthesizers listed have articles. I would accept List of influential synthesizers but I doubt anyone else would, and I admit it suffers from the same problems as "classic", only less so. Anarchangel ( talk) 00:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  I think having a "List of synthesizers" page might be a good idea, and I hadn't thought of that. If the outcome of this nom is to delete then I might make a new, sourced "List of synthesizers" page myself. Popcornduff ( talk) 11:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Rename to List of synthesizers as proposed by Anarchangel. If List of synthesizers is desireable content, List of classic synthesizers is a good leg up and these contributions should be attributed by preserving revision history of the list through move. ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:55, 22 January 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. RL0919 ( talk) 18:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Globasa

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

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

A non-notable, nascent personal project. The only sources provided are the project's own website. A web search only returns WP:UGC on reddit, fandom, and its own wiki. WP:CRYSTAL - the opening line says it all, "Globasa is a planned international auxiliary language devised by Hector Ortega", it embodies ambition but is only as yet a personal project. Cabayi ( talk) 12:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 12:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 12:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Hardly any independent coverage for this constructed language. See also here what happened to the article on Pandunia. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:SPS. No independent sources found.-- Darius ( talk) 20:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

New ICT

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

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

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