WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2020 MARCH 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 March	13 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season#Legacy. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 04:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Manchester United Treble Reunion

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

A charity football match between retired players isn't particularly notable. It can be adequately summarised by a single line in the 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season article under the "Legacy" heading. Most of the sources in the article refer to the events that this match was commemorating, not this match itself, and even then there is no indication of any lasting significance to this match beyond the fact that it commemorated the Treble. This page should be redirected to 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season#Legacy. – Pee Jay 21:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 21:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete/redirect per nom. Giant Snowman 19:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete It's about time someone said it. KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs) 00:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect per nom. Mightytotems ( talk) 21:03, 19 March 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Tom Carnahan

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

In addition to being written like blatant promotional material from a campaign website, the individual fails WP:GNG and is not notable per WP:BLPRELATED KidAd ( talk) 21:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete WP:ROTM lawyer. TJRC ( talk) 21:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete: A case of WP:PEACOCK as well. So many attributions yet no citations. Lunar Clock ( talk) 22:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

You think it's WP:PEACOCK now, you should have seen it before the worst of it was cleaned up. TJRC ( talk) 22:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

That version should be archived and used for new Wikipedians as an example of what not to do. The honorifics, the the picture of power generators, I could go on... KidAd ( talk) 03:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete, Delete, I swear to god Delete. Holy moly this page is a shambles. WP:PEACOCK indeed, also unsourced and very advertisey. dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 23:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete one local interest news article does not create notability. It is articles like this that make me feel we should require all new articles to go through the article creation process. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES, WP:MILL, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:TNT. He's never won major political office in his own right. He's an ordinary lawyer, and fails my own standards for attorneys. Notability is not inherited from his parents. The article is such a hot mess it would need to be re-created from scratch. FWIW, I am on record on social media for supporting his mother's re-election. Bearian ( talk) 00:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable. Alpateya ( talk) 20:02, 17 March 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Raab Bustamante

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

A taxonomist who does not appear to satisfy either special ( WP:NPROF) or general notability requirements. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 20:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 20:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 20:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. I can only find two publications by him in Google scholar (searching both for Rene or R.A.A. in his name), one with two citations and one with zero. That's far below WP:PROF#C1, even in a low-citation field like taxonomy. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete not even remotely close to meeting notability guidelines for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Falls well short of WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 22:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete: I can find barely anything about him aside from the 2 sources indicated by David Eppstein. ASTIG😎 _{(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE)} 10:42, 16 March 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The Thrashing Rock, Kentucky

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

GNIS has it as a locale, sourced to Rennick, whose Kentucky Place Names lacks it; not marked on any topos or mentioned in newspapers.com archives as a notable community. Reywas92^Talk 20:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete I am unable to find RS to show that this is a populated notable place. Fails WP:GEOLAND#2 Lightburst ( talk) 21:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete I found no references in Google Books, newspapers.com, EBSCO Masterfile and ProQuest US Newsstream. Cxbrx ( talk) 21:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Does not appear on maps, GNIS lists it as a "locale", no sign of anything notable here. – dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 17 March 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 Sundering of the Elves#Eldar. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 06:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Silvan Elves

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

This small subgroup of Tolkien's fictional elves has not been paid much attention by critics, and the topic does not merit a separate article given we already have Elf (Middle-earth) and Sundering of the Elves. I'd suggest merging to the second of those but without reliable secondary sources there's almost nothing to merge. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 20:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 21:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 21:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment, sorry but rather than "This small subgroup of Tolkien's fictional elves .." aren't these the elves (also rendered as "wood elves") that play key roles in The Hobbit, capturing the company in Mirkwood, and being involved in the Battle of the Five Armies? Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Entirely original research, and therefore, nothing to merge. No obvious target, and therefore it is better if users utilize the search function._{ZXCVBNM (
TALK)} 07:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment, the Silvans are a major subgroup of the Nandors, so at least would suggest that a redirect target could be Nandor (Middle-earth), but that was subject to the afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nandor (Middle-earth) that resulted in a merge to Teleri, the nominator (hi Chiswick Chap:) has been bold and turned the Teleri article into a redirect to Elf (Middle-earth)#History (btw, goes to top of that article as there is no "History" section), so a "redirect" target for this article could also be Elf (Middle-earth)#Fictional history, noting that Silvan Elves does receive around 80 to 100 views per day? Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

For what it's worth, I've rewritten a couple of dozen Middle-earth articles with new scholarly discussion of their significance, and have brought several to GA status; my goal is to have an informative, accurate, and properly-cited coverage of Middle-earth, free of fancruft. The measure of notability is not what actions certain tribes or characters took in such-and-such a fiction; it is the extent they have been covered in reliable secondary sources. Legolas is the only wood-elf who is obviously notable, and has his own article; perhaps Thranduil (yeah, who?) might scrape by. I've updated the link. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Except that Legolas and Thranduil are not silvan elves. That would be like classing William the Conqueror as an Anglo-Saxon. Just because they rule over Silvan elves does not make them actual silvan elves. Of course Thranduil has the added oddity of lacking being named in any work where he actually appears. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Thereis potential for lots of discussion about the meaning of Tolkien having the Silvan elves ruled over by other elves, what this means in the context of the colonialist world he was raised in, weather he ever conceptualized it in that context, etc. However until such discussions are created in reliable sources we lack enough indepth, reliable, secondary source material to create this article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete or redirect to main article about elves of Middle-Earth. Silvan Elves don't have a dedicated entry in Tolkien Encyclopedia and I don't see any non-plot discussion of them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Sundering of the Elves#Eldar, where the Silvan elves are mentioned. Frankly, I doubt that any of the subtribes of elves are notable, likely just the main Elf (Middle-earth) article. Hog Farm ( talk) 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Happy to go along with that. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 20:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per Zxcvbnm, or redirect to Elf (Middle-earth). I'd oppose redirecting to Sundering of the Elves, which strikes me as similarly unlikely to be independently notable. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 18:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Sundering already has multiple reliable sources but I can look out some more. It's a more specific target than Elf. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:13, 18 March 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.

Deleted per request of the creator. Number 5 7 20:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Social Democratic Party in the 2018 Swedish general election

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

This article serves no real purpose. It largely duplicates Results of the 2018 Swedish general election and is also a clear violation of WP:NOTSTATS – results at municipality level are not useful statistics as seats are determined at constituency level. Number 5 7 19:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Secondary to the AfD, the article creator has created a whole series of Results of the 1973 Swedish general election-type articles. Whilst "Results of" articles are generally accepted as being useful, the format in which these are being created (by detailing the votes at municipality level rather than constituency level) does not appear to be very helpful and are also probably NOTSTATS violations in their current form. I have tried suggesting to the creator that they should take articles like this as a guideline for what is useful, but have been met by a complete unwillingness to listen. Number 5 7 19:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 19:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Mahendra Pratap Singh

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

Non-notable party official who fails WP:GNG. Article was created by someone with a COI. I originally BLP PRODed but it was contested after a source (which was a link to Facebook) was added. GPL93 ( talk) 19:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 ( talk) 19:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 ( talk) 19:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete: As per nom. Also, not to be confused with Mahendra Pratap. Subject doesn't have much to show in Primary Sources Lunar Clock ( talk) 22:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

No Delete their is no confusion with details all links which is provided as reference is verified Mahendra Pratap Singh.

sssikarwar14. .

sssikarwar14 whether or not he actually exists is not the issue. None of the provided links are Significant coverage from Reliable sources that prove that he's actually notable enough for an article. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 16:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

^{verification needed} check the latest link which he provided.

Well, two are dead links and one is a passing mention (so not significant coverage) so doesn't change much. At this time I'd also like to remind you that editing from multiple accounts including using IP's is against policy. GPL93 ( talk) 17:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

sssikarwar14 I'm new here so can you tell me which type of links should this page provide for verification. so i can put about Mahendra Pratap Singh. his website ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.77.102.199 ( talk) 17:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Please read the links above to Wikipedia policies. To be even clearer this is not a case of verification. This is a case of if he is actually notable enough to have an article through significant media coverage, which he is likely not. GPL93 ( talk) 17:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Simple searching reveals no RS independent coverage of the subject (under the name of the article); fails GNG. Would not pass POLITICAN as has not held an elected office; holds a non-notable state level party position with no other activities. Nothing notable about the business activities. The only link on the page that actually points to a reliable source is a Hindi-language piece from Patrika - which makes only a trivial mention (although not to the name of the article, but rather to Santosh Sikarwar) ... also only refers to him as a district level party official of the BJP farmers' organisation (front). Searching in Hindi using संतोष सिकरवार I can only find a single utterly trivial mention here as one of a number of local-level people attending a festival. -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 08:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) xinbenlv ^{Talk,
Remember to "ping" me} 05:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Reynmen

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

Article about a non-notable internet celebrity, who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 07:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 07:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 07:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep And how do you exactly know that he's non-notable? Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean that he fails the notability criteria. He has near 6 million followers on YouTube and two of his songs have been viewed over 200 million times ( 1, 2) while the others also have very high viewing numbers. National newspapers such as Hurriyet and Milliyet have also published news and articles about him. If that doesn't justify notability for an Internet celebrity / singer I don't know what does. Keivan.f^Talk 20:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete unless RS exist; I'm not finding any. Views, followers, or popularity are linked to notability but do not constitute it without significant coverage. b uidh e 23:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC) reply

That’s because reliable sources for this specific individual mostly exist in Turkish, rather than English. As I mentioned above, Turkish prominent newspapers have published articles on him and occasionally cover news related to him. That’s why I think he meets the criteria to have an article. I’ll include some of these sources in the article as soon as I find some free time. Keivan.f^Talk 15:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The9Man | ( talk) 08:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Leaning towards a keep based on WP:RS available when searched with "Yusuf Aktaş". KartikeyaS ( talk) 17:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 04:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Takeshi Kovacs

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

A fictional character that appears in three novels and the related franchise, but no indication of notability ( WP:GNG) otherwise. The many sources just repeat plot ( WP:NOTPLOT) plus give some trivial casting info, but nothing that would justify a stand-alone article or merging. – sgeureka ^t•
c 16:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•
c 16:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep While I am not as familiar with the books as the series the subject is the main character in 3 books and 2 seasons of a popular streaming service. To me that seems like it would be notable enough even if the article needs to be cleaned up... and possibly have new references added. ScienceAdvisor ( talk) 21:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep As ScienceAdvisor has said, three books and a major multi-season streaming series should confer sufficient notability for an article about the central character that ties those works together. Samsara 12:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete or redirect - Notability is not inherited from parent works. Current sourcing is mostly passing mentions. There needs to be more meat. TTN ( talk) 00:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep As stated above, 3 books + a multi-series TV series where the character is central is plenty, it's a lot more than many other character pages have. Lack of "Meat" is reason to improve the aricle, not remove it. Hackerjack ( talk) 15:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Notability is not inherited. Meat in this instance refers to more substantial reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. TTN ( talk) 15:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep as a notable fictional character:

The book Sex, Death and Resurrection in Altered Carbon: Essays on the Netflix Series has at least two character-centric sections: Living with Ghosts: The Haunting of Takeshi Kovacs and Takeshi Kovacs: The Dilemma of Inbetweenness.
The academic article "Romanticism and the Cortical Stack: Cyberpunk Subjectivity in the Takeshi Kovacs Novels of Richard K. Morgan" has numerous details about the character.
He is also one of the protagonists discussed in the book The Transhuman Antihero: Paradoxical Protagonists of Speculative Fiction from Mary Shelley to Richard Morgan.
I see more character-centric details in the book Beyond Cyberpunk: New Critical Perspectives.

Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ^{(
ping me)} 18:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Of the four, only the essay goes into any depth on the character. The others either barely mention the character, or only mention the character in relation to the plot to discuss the wider themes. TTN ( talk) 21:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

No, they do not "barely mention" the character. I reviewed the sources and found numerous details characterizing the figure directly. Bare mentions are items like WP:GNG's example of Bill Clinton's jazz band Three Blind Mice. Erik ( talk | contrib) ^{(
ping me)} 21:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Here's an example of such details from Beyond Cyberpunk:

"Unlike most cyberpunk heroes, Kovacs is ethnically-marked. Where his fictional predecessors were mostly race-blind and heroes uniformly white, Kovacs repeatedly stresses his mixed Japanese and Hungarian roots... followed by examples throughout the books.
"Personal freedom of street-wise operators like Kovacs is possible... his outspoken, often solitary, dismissals of the Protectorate's might... only amplify the lack of lasting political alternatives."
"A solitary and cynical Chandlerian hero, he continually asserts his independence and readiness to do violence to maintain his territoriality, but the narratives repeatedly position Kovacs in situations in which he chooses to—as opposed to having to—stand up for others."
"As Steven Shaviro notes, Kovacs seems to 'combine an utterly Hobbesian view of human nature with a Marx-like level of outrage at explotation and and oppression'."'
'"Kovacs frequently experiences a sense of peculiar detachment and a feeling that the sleeve he is wearing reacts to certain stimuli unconsciously but the results bear on his conscious mind."

Not "barely mention" at all. That claim is a disingenuous framing of the sources that demonstrate the topic's notability. Erik ( talk | contrib) ^{(
ping me)} 22:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

For The Transhuman Antihero, a character-focused book studying multiple such characters, it states, "As with the other paradoxical protagonists examined in this study, Morgan's Takeshi Kovacs is revealed to be a a character whose actions whose actions are often informed by a personal sense of morality and justice." Erik ( talk | contrib) ^{(
ping me)} 22:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep: Erik's quotes demonstrate that TTN's characterization of the sources as trivial is incorrect. There is a point where nitpicking of sources becomes reflexive and not grounded in common sense. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 02:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) xinbenlv ^{Talk,
Remember to "ping" me} 05:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Abhay R Vasavada

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

BLP, unsourced for 2 years. Either it needs sources or it needs to go. Dirk Beetstra ^{T
C} 13:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dirk Beetstra ^{T
C} 13:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep: While I agree with Nom about sources, especially on a BLP, there appears to be sourcing just not used in the article. I have not examined them in depth so listed them in "Comments" below for consideration and possible inclusion. Otr500 ( talk)

Comments

The article does not have references, certainly no inline citations, but uses the old practice of sourcing through "External links". As a BLP the standards are mandated to be higher and this practice seems to really only prevent a BLP-PROD that could force the use of required references. The one link that caught my eye "One of the Most Influential People in Ophthalmology" (nice puff wording) and was a dead link so I removed it. The Eyeworld link is concerning "New lens seeks to solve problems of presbyopia-correcting IOLs", doctor Frank Goes Jr., MD (the author) and the "Goes Eye Centre", but not the subject.

I would normally agree about the references and the two years of languishing but the content states, "To his credit, he has contributed 140 publications in peer reviewed national & international journals" which is interesting, and I found this link, which if reliable indicates a higher degree of notability.

The "resume of awards" seems pretty impressive with the exception of the "top 50". Eyeworld does have a profile on the subject, his practice, and family. The subject has contributed to PubMed Central (PMC). The subject and his clinic apparently performs clinical trials and submits the findings to the American Journal of Ophthalmology. Otr500 ( talk) 15:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC) reply

There are lot of claims and awards without any kind of references. How can we verify these claims even if it is true? How can be that considered as a encyclopedia content? Is WP:AGF enough? - The9Man ^(
Talk) 10:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Weak delete per WP:PROF. If the article had been written in 2006, instead of 2016, I would assume good faith about the references about this person. I found a few newsletters and press releases online, but they are not reliable. The only article on Google news that might be considered scholarship is not by him - it's about a peptide outside his field of scholarship. I found a few articles at G scholar, but again, they are not all by him. Bearian ( talk) 02:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 01:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 15:09, 12 March 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Faizan Sheikh

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

Non-notable actor, lacks reliable significant coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR. Störm (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 14:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 14:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 14:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep as per my comments in the previous AFD in 2018 (no consensus) he easily passes WP:NACTOR with multiple prominent roles in notable productions such as Heer Maan Ja third billing, Saaya (Pakistani TV series) main cast, Ready Steady Go (Pakistani TV series) main cast, confirmed in multiple reliable sources such as national newspapers Dawn and Express Tribune. already in the article. There is no valid reason at all for this article to be deleted, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep: I think there's enough here to pass the relevant notability standards, even if it's not a clear-cut case. Dflaw4 ( talk) 05:14, 13 March 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. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Mercy Eke

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

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

Fails GNG. Nothing suggest her media career will be different from being just a big brother naija “winner”. Does not pass any of the specific guidelines for her line of work either, just some paid-media buzz. I have reasons to believe there is a strong COI here too, but my main rationale for this nomination is I don't see "relevance" in a few years time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonybaby ( talk • contribs) 10:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment No opinion on the article, but this twitter feed [1] includes a screenshot of your rationale. Doug Weller talk 11:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

So this is getting interesting. Thank God the week is almost over. This nomination is a fork of my rationale in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tacha, it should be speedily closed as it seem more like a case of gaming the system. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 14:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

*Strong Delete - The subject of article has still not been discussed with in-depth coverage in reliable sources invariably failing in WP:ENT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carababy1 ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment This article does not deserve to be deleted. The points raised are invalid. One can't give a foresight of the career path of Mercy Eke. The basis for deletion is simply vague and bias. Mercy Eke has achieved a lot within a short period of time. She became the fisrt female to win Africa's Biggest Reality TV Show. She launched a clothing line. She has been endorsed by reputable brands. She has ventured into acting, starring in movies produced by veterans in Nollywood. As a result, she has been recognized for her influence and impact, bagging several accolades and awards to her name. She is currently shooting for her reality show that will be aired soon and this is going to solidify her name in the entertainment industry. Mercy Eke has several projects to embark on this year and it will be unfair if this article is deleted because it is an avenue for her to be publicized to the world.

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystique4788 ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

References

Strong Keep - Passes general notability guidelines & quite easily I might add. Celestina007 ( talk) 12:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

*Comment Carababy1 this article gives an in-depth view of the subject, it passes all general guidelines without any form of bias, proper and notable citations and references have been provided. The article does not pose any reason for deletion. Furthermore, there has not been influx of new users gearing towards this article, the dialogue gives light to this fact and counters your false claim.

Comment Mystique4788 This is just a Promotional article for a non-notable actor. Does not pass WP:CREATIVE nor WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. I could not find anything online to substantiate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonybaby ( talk • contribs) 13:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Why would anyone want this article or page deleted? Mercy Eke's Wikipedia page has been a reference page for ladies struggling with self doubt. Her life is a message of "You can do it". I strongly oppose to this deletion. In Nigeria,there is an unspoken code about single ladies investing in landed properties: Mercy Eke bought a house, it went viral and passed a message to single ladies that they can invest without fear of segregation from the society. She started her clothing store and is endorsed as brand influencer and /or ambasaddor to top notch companies. We also saw her as a video vixen #Take it video by Rude boy of Psquare fame and #Ije ego by MC Galaxy. The reason for which this article was nominated for deletion is obviously malicious as none of the reasons listed holds water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MamaBomboy ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller ( talk • contribs) reply

*Comment — It should also be noted that a very strong Canvassing is ongoing & trending in Nigerian twitter whereby links to this AFD are posted & people are asked to sign up & !vote to keep this article & defend it relentlessly. twitter feed [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonybaby ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep: per WP:GAME. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 14:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep Bad faith submission per Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Theroadislong ( talk) 14:59, 12 March 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) xinbenlv ^{Talk,
Remember to "ping" me} 05:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Recursive islands and lakes

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

~~Fails WP:N and WP:RS. "Recursive" lake or island is not a term found in journals or news. It is a Reddit trivia thing.~~ The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 11:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Note to closer - I'm withdrawing my nomination to delete this one. Looking at the article with its many updates and heading changes, I think it's worth keeping and I think sources will be really hard to come by. I look forward to seeing more sources and improvements-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 15:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 15:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 15:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~ as original research, alternatively redirect to Lake island § Islands within lakes recursively. The phenomenon is interesting and has a few mentions in pop science / clickbait news, but coverage is very short and no sources present the information like this. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- See below – Thjarkur (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect (merging the citations) per Þjarkur; while the assemblage of examples may be OR-ish, the phenomenon is real and citations are provided, so it would be sensible to save those at least. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Blatant OR that serves no purpose beyond Thjarkur's link, unclear why the made-up "first-order" lakes and islands needed to be listed... Irregular name does not need a redirect. Reywas92^Talk 18:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep--the name "recursive island" is not made up, see this (this is about islands in a marsh rather than a lake). Yet I can accept that first order/ second order, etc. terminology is not commonly used in English. People do find this phenomenon curious, see this and this. Such islands can be considered a tourist attraction: see this: "Lake Makaysee is unusual in that it has an island with two small lakes." and here "this “lake with islands, on an island in a bay” is a special place." Lastly, a better candidate for merger would be with Recursion, as the Lake islands article already has decent coverage of the topic. It would fit okay with all of the other types of recursion with their subsections.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 18:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment: The 2019 Guinness Book of World Records has a section titled "RECURSIVE LAKE ISLANDS" which lists the largest such island. The material on this topic on the Lake Islands article may have come from this source. Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 18:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Even the Guinness source doesn't go into the multiple levels of recursion that this article does. This is a clear case of WP:OR and a selective merge to Lake island sounds like a good idea. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep-- The concept of recursive islands is mentioned many times, a quick google search of "island in a lake" come up with many results referencing to this phenomena , [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], And even sources reffering to them as "recursive islands" [9]. The recursive lakes and islands section in Lake island is ok for knowing the largest of each type of island/lake but the article Recursive islands and lakes is meant for wide scale documentation and understanding of recursive islands/lakes not a quick overview like on Lake island Just your average wikipedian ( talk) 22:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Just your average wikipedian ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. reply
- I fail to see why Lake island cannot be expanded. I see virtually nothing in your article that is not already there or cannot be added with minimal impact to its size and contents. Lakes having islands being a real thing does not mean we need a separate page for your made-up orders, WP:OR commentary, and duplication of existing material. The hoax can certainly be mentioned in the main article too. Reywas92^Talk 04:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  - hi there Reywas92, I completely understand your point of view, at its current state the article Recursive islands and lakes would seem fitting to merge with the article Lake island. But I do not believe this is the right thing to do because the article is still in its beginning stage, only 3 days old. My plan for the completed article is a wide scale documentation of recursive lakes/islands with hundreds of entries, and information relating directly to recursive lakes/islands. I have realised that better title for the article would be "List of recursive islands and lakes", And maybe discussion can be put in place later for its renaming. But because it is a list, and in its completed state, a very long list, I do not think it is appropriate to merge it with the article Lake island, as it would take up a large majority of the article. Lake island is more of an article about the types of lake islands (artificial, volcanic, ect) ,and the science/geology of lake islands, rather than a very large list of non-significant islands. If you have any changes to Recursive islands and lakes that would make you more willing to keep it as a separate article, please do mention them. kind regards Just your average wikipedian ( talk) 06:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  - Comment--The phrase "Orders of recursion" is not made up. If you search the phrase "Orders of recursion" in Google, you get 38,000 results. If you search "third order recursive," you get 4,960 results. The orders are a mathematical concept that is implicit in the concept of recursion. My previous comment that I could not find English results discussing the orders in English was only concerning discussion of recursive lakes and islands, not other recursive phenomenon. However, it is conceivable that the phrase "Orders of recursion" is in the Guinness Book of World Records. There is a reference to the "Largest recursive island entry being in the 1992 Guinness Book of World Records. So if anyone here has a access to the Guinness Book of World Records from the last ~30 years, it would be nice if they could research this for us.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 15:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    - Guinness does use "recursive", but speaks in clear terms "X within Y" instead of "orders" (you can find the book online). I have switched the article over to these terms. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
      - Thank you for checking, I had been unable to find it online.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 17:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Weak keep – The Guinness source presented above shows that this curiosity is at least somewhat notable, I have removed the WP:OR and based the article on the way the Guinness source presents the material. However, it only lists the largest of each type, filling in more entries is difficult due to the lack of other reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Edwardx ( talk) 11:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Filmink

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx ( talk) 10:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator On reflection, this does appear to be a legit outfit, even if the article is poor. As we all should know (okay, me anyway), AfD is not clean-up! Edwardx ( talk) 11:40, 12 March 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 Dick Grayson. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 06:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Haly's Circus

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

Complete unreferenced. BEFORE shows mentions in passing and some plot summaries. I am not seeing any work that has analyzed the significance of this fictional location or such. In general, fictional locations are rarely notable, much less often then characters. Anyway, this fails WP:NFICTION/ WP:GNG. I am supportive of any SOFTDELETE/PRESERVE to some list of fictional locations, but there is nothing to merge (given zero references). Could consider redirecting to Dick Grayson, I guess, since it is likely the most relevant article. Still, I prefer to have a discussion here, in case someone would like to argue this topic can be rescued as a stand-alone article; instead of a "stealthy" deletion by redirect which I am not very fond of. So, thoughts? Salvageable, redirect or delete? (My recommendation is a redirect). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 10:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 10:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 10:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 10:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Another WP:POINTy AfD after the PROD was shot down. Article is not without references, as nominator claims. The Banner talk 22:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Riiight, a singular reference to primary source (" Detective Comics #38. DC Comics.")... what is POINTy is your copypaste comments on all AfDs I am starting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
  reply here} 03:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Dick Grayson, it is him who comes close to making it notable. Since the article lacks any non-primary sources, I am not sure we really have anything to merge. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete or redirect unless sources that can establish notability are presented. TTN ( talk) 23:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - I would like to see more sourced info before considering it as a keeper. I can't find much. GizzyCatBella 🍁 05:46, 15 March 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Advance Telecom

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Didn't find any reliable sources. Borgia Venedict ( talk) 10:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Edi7* ^{(
Message Me! •
📜)} 07:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete I cant find reliable independent sources with in depth coverage. Mccapra ( talk) 04:50, 19 March 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) 00:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

New Spotlight Magazine

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

Plenty of unsourced additions from UPE/COI editors, but nothing turns up in WP:BEFORE. Based on the facts that their online articles/stories are very poorly written (see the one added as a source by a new account in an article I created only yesterday diff), their online about page lists two people, their efforts to use Wikipedia for promotion, and because I have never before seen any reliable source cite this magazine, I see no reason to presume notability. Contrary to what the article says, the last report from Press Council had this magazine in 'B' class. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. Some mentions in passing, nothing in-depth, plus a lot of the coverage is about an older, different magazine that existed at least in the 1970s. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 10:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete pernom. Borgia Venedict ( talk) 10:45, 12 March 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) 00:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Steve Vladar

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

Not notable Rathfelder ( talk) 09:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete pernom. Borgia Venedict ( talk) 10:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete not seeing any notability. Mccapra ( talk) 04:53, 19 March 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 The Godfather series characters. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 06:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Joey Zasa

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

Godfather franchise is famous enough that it has been analyzed in quite a few media, but I cannot find any in-depth coverage of this character. All I see are WP:PLOT summaries (usually brief, but numerous enough due to movie's popularity to generate a ton of googlehits), plus one-sentence-liners that this fictional character has been inspired by one or more real life and notable mobsters (see lead). Still, PLOT+one line of analysis that is solely limited to fictional character origins (inspired by X and/or Y and/or Z) does not seem sufficient for him to meet WP:NFICTION/GNG. Thoughts? I don't see see a good merge/redirect target for the only valuable part of the article, the lead sentence about the character's inspiration (perhaps The_Godfather_(novel)#Main_characters, but he is not a main character, is he?). Comments appreciated. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 09:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 09:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 09:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 09:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Merge and Redirect to List of The Godfather series characters. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Merge to List of The Godfather series characters. The Banner talk 22:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect to List of The Godfather series characters. — Hunter Kahn 04:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect as above, not enough coverage for a standalone article imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:12, 15 March 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 Dirk Pitt. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 06:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

James Sandecker

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

No evidence this fictional character passes WP:NFICTION/GNG. Prod contested in good faith by new WP:SPA User:Mrsjkoster who wrote "This article is about a FICTIONAL CHARACTER--a made-up person in a series of novels. Please do not delete it. I've read all these novels and the article contains accurate content. I have no idea why you expect it to have non-fiction citations when this is a fictional character and the book from which the information is taken is cited directly in the article". To which I will reply, please read WP:NFICTION/ WP:GNG first, where you'll see that articles about fictional characters are required to be referenced, and to go beyond WP:PLOT (which this article does not). BEFORE does not reveal any discussion of this character that goes beyond PLOT and in-passing mentions that he appeared in two movies and was played by Robards and Macy. I am not seeing any source that discusses this character in-depth outside a plot summary (and frankly, even those are tough, the GoogleHits I see are mostly PRIMARY to Cussler's novels...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete or redirect to Dirk Pitt (which should probably be restructured into a series article). There is nothing in the article to allow it to pass WP:GNG. TTN ( talk) 17:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Dirk Pitt, the article fails WP:PLOT and WP:GNG, as it contains not a single reference, not even a primary one. I could find no references out there that would in any way help this pass GNG. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 22:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete another fictional character with no real world notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:39, 13 March 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) xinbenlv ^{Talk,
Remember to "ping" me} 05:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Ork! The Roleplaying Game

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

No evidence this game is notable. Fails WP:NBOOK and related. PROD declined as "there are reviews", but I see only a single borderline one, the cited Pyramid review [10], and while I might accept Pyramid as reliable, even its own website describes it (for that period) as an online zine. I tried to find a way to access that review, but as far as I can tell it is neither offered legally or illegally. I am not sure if it is even properly archived anywhere, it may be 'gone'. That of course is not relevant in itself, through it means this with no other sources, this will remain a stub for a foreseeable future (but again, the fact that this review may no longer exist in this world doesn't mean the article should be deleted). The problem is, this seems to be the best source we have, and that's just not enough. I tried looking for other reviews, but all I found (and I've added it to external links) was one blog and one entry at RPGnet, which is as far as I can tell equivalent to either a forum-review, a blog, or a wiki ("Edit this Review"). As such, I am afraid this fails NBOOK and such, since all we have is one borderline reliable review (in Pyramid, with the stress on borderline reliable, as online zines are not top quality sources), and with the two other reviews being inacceptable (blog/forum= WP:SPS) this fails at NBOOK/GNG requirement or 'in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Some games are significant for the history of the genre, or for their own reception, awards, etc. I am afraid I am not seeing much to help save this, but maybe someone else can did anything? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Pyramid was an on-line gaming magazine published by Steve Jackson Games (SJG) that provided independent in-depth reviews of games not published by SJG. While it is sad that many articles are now hidden behind a paywall, it is still RS. Guinness323 ( talk) 18:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep: I agree with Guinness323 that Pyramid was a high-quality source. It's not relevant whether we personally can't access a source right now on our laptops without getting up from our chairs. Sources aren't "gone" when we can't immediately access them. People have copies of old gaming magazines; if the sources exist in the world, then the subject passes WP:NEXIST. The only thing that makes a source "gone" for the purposes of this AfD discussion is if people who own those magazines don't discover or understand the fairly arcane practices of AfD discussions, between now and next week. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 21:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per above comments or merge to Green Ronin Publishing since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ ( talk) 22:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - the current form of the article has multiple RS and clearly meets NBOOK and the GNG. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment. The article has been significantly expanded since the nomination (thank you User:Guinness323). I cannot access the Hungarian review added (the page doesn't load for me). If it is reliable (not a blog orforum) then it might be sufficient to meet GNG requirement for multiple sources. Unfortunately, as I said, the page does not want to open for me, so I cannot review it myself (if I could confirm it is reliable, I would consider withdrawing this nom). PS. But given the low quality of the two other reviews I've found and linked in external sources, I cannot AGF the Hungarian page I cannot access as high quality, but I invite those who can open it to review it here. I'll note that the two other sources added to the article mention this game only in passing and as such are not sufficient to help to establish notability, one seems to be not much better than a press release anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 03:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete: I'm happy to accept that Pyramid is a reliable source, but none of the other references or external links in the article strike me as likely to be reliable, and a single reliable source is not sufficient to establish notability. WP:MUSTBESOURCES isn't a convincing argument: if "people have copies of old gaming magazines" that contain reviews or other coverage, they ought to have been able to provide at least minimal evidence of that coverage's existence by now. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 17:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Applecline's Designers & Dragons is an independent, carefully researched and footnoted book published by a reputable publisher (not self published). Totally RS. Guinness323 ( talk) 18:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

What does it have to say about the subject of the article though? It's used to support a specific claim; there's no indication in the article that it contains significant coverage and no one's suggested it does in this discussion. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 18:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I hope you do see your own inconsistency here; previously you said "none of the other references ... strike me as likely to be reliable", and when it was pointed out to you that one of them actually is, you moved your goalpost to WP:SIGCIV, which is an entirely different argument. To answer your question, Appelcline mentions the article's subject several times, uses its cover as the title art for a chapter on the game's publisher, and notes that, coming out as it did before John Wick (game designer)'s Orkworld, it was one of several headwinds against the success of the latter game. So I am, in fact, suggesting that this coverage documents the notability of the subject, and we clearly have multiple RS. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

No goalpost-moving intended – I simply got the facts slightly wrong in my !vote (I should have said something like "likely to constitute significant coverage in a reliable source" instead of "likely to be reliable"), then requested clarification when this was pointed out. I'm not able to access the source, nor am I convinced by your description of it that it meets the standard I'd expect, but I appreciate the clarification. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 20:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

My job, here as with The Everlasting, is simply to describe the sources as they actually are. If you or Piotrus choose to misinterpret or apply idiosyncratic standards to sources, that is for you to do and for the closer, per policy, to ignore. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The closer might equally find "Appelcline ... uses its cover as the title art for a chapter" to be an idiosyncratic standard for what constitutes significant coverage – I certainly do! – but there's little value in trying to divine their will. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 21:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Nice use of quotation out of context. Do you do that often? Newimpartial ( talk) 21:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough again – my previous comment was intended to suggest that I don't think there's any point in discussing this further. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 22:06, 18 March 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 The Twelve Sisters#Films and soap operas. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 04:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Nang Sib Song (TV series)

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

Tagged for notability since 2008 and sourced only to a YouTube video. Apparently no equivalent article on th.wiki. Article is mostly plot. Unless someone can find some good Thai refs, I think this should be deleted. Mccapra ( talk) 07:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 07:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 07:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Merge (without prejudice) the lead actors, channel and date of original broadcast to The Twelve Sisters#Films and soap operas, where there's already a list entry. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 14:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment Thanks - a merge seems sensible. Mccapra ( talk) 21:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) xinbenlv ^{Talk,
Remember to "ping" me} 05:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Obsello Absenta

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

Obsello Absenta is no longer produced, the website has been taken down, the trademark has lapsed, and the brand is almost impossible to find.

Even the fact that it is no longer produced does not make it notable. There are several other brands of absinthe that have been produced that are no longer made.

Horseshoe123 ( talk) 10:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC) I vote Delete. Horseshoe123 ( talk) 17:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{ afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I myself am neutral at this time. -- Finngall ^talk 19:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Notability is not temporary. The current sourcing in the article is problematic, with many being short mentions or 404, but significant coverage in independent reliable sources remains available in searches. WP:BEFORE discloses coverage in the Phoenix New Times, Monterey County Now, and the Wormwood Society. This is enough for GNG compliance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete of the sources listed by Eggishorn, #1 is one paragraph, #2 looks promotional to me, and #3 is a collection of user-generated reviews, not a reliable source. b uidh e 05:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More commentary on the sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 06:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Kishore Shallow

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

Fails WP:GNG and not meeting the criteria of WP:NPOV. The article cannot be treated as notable just because of being the vice-president of Cricket West Indies. The article has been written for promotional purposes. Abishe ( talk) 02:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abishe ( talk) 02:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Abishe ( talk) 02:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Abishe ( talk) 02:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep - Easily meets the GNG. I strongly suspect that the vice-president of the Cricket West Indies (formerly the West Indies Cricket Board) is notable by virtue of his position in the governing body of one of the most important test cricket teams. As far as the sources go, the ICC's website is reliable, Searchlight is a national-level news source. The Jamaica Gleaner, the Trinidad and Tobago Guardian, the Trinidad and Tobago Express - all these major newspapers of record - cover Shallow's election and his actions as VP. In addition, the Guardian reports Shallow, 33, who is the youngest cricket president for any national cricket association, [11] which is itself an important claim to notability. Guettarda ( talk) 03:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 06:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep- Per Guettarda. Analog Horror, ( Speak) 23:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 04:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

SASM

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

Non-notable personal project. ~~No citations since article was created in 2012.~~ Dgpop ( talk) 18:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Incorrect--there are two citations in the article, both to books that are reliable sources. ~~Perhaps WP:BEFORE was not done here?~~ Fixed, see below. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 19:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment Thank you Mark–fixed above. This was a bad cut & paste on my part. One reference is a tutorial, one lightweight. That this software is actually used and notable remains to be seen. Dgpop ( talk) 02:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks, and fair enough--there may be some verifiable material, but the sources are not enough to establish notability by themselves. --

{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}

03:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Weak keep: Two book sources are cited, which is normally sufficient to pass WP:NSOFTWARE. The coverage in one of these seems quite short, but still relatively in-depth as opposed to a mere mention (as evidenced by its having a separate section). Modernponderer ( talk) 12:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 02:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 06:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) xinbenlv ^{Talk,
Remember to "ping" me} 05:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

London Centre for Arts and Cultural Exchange

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

The article only uses primary sources and I cannot find any secondary independent sources that would indicate notability. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 23:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment the organization has been renamed to 'The Culture Capital Exchange (TCCE). They organize the Inside Out Festival. Perhaps that is a suitable target for a merge or a redirect. TCCE itself has not received much attention in the media. Vexations ( talk) 13:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 02:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 06:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 06:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Brian Wood (solider)

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

Appears to fail WP:SOLDIER Gbawden ( talk) 06:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 06:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 06:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. While subject doesnt pass WP:SOLDIER but it passes WP:GNG of the ordeal where I have added 3 more sources - see war probe 'damaging' says soldier, [12], Crossed by Brian Wood review — a soldier ambushed in the courtroom and [13]. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 06:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep He doespass WP: Soldier as he is apart of two significant events: the Iraq Al-Sweady Inquiry and for leading the first British Bayonet charge in 25 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalderUK ( talk • contribs) 08:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Neutral comment CalderUK, please sign your posts and follow AfD voting protocol; we don't break out headings on simple vote!s because they break the daily AfD log. I have fixed your vote! with no refactoring outside the title, which isn't needed. Nate • ( chatter) 08:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep while he doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER he does pass WP:GNG due to coverage from the false war crimes allegations and surrounding controversy and may also be notable as an author. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 22:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Agree with CalderUK that he does pass WP:SOLDIER, and passes WP:GNG due to media coverage. Because were have involvement in two separate notable incidents, WP:BLP1E does not apply. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 18 March 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. Per WP:GNG, "multiple sources are generally expected". ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Barrett Brown (wrestler)

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

No reliable about this professional wrestler.-- Sismarinho ( talk) 05:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Sismarinho ( talk) 06:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep, 1 of its sources pass WP:GNG and subject seems notable. dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 07:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Which source? 1 it's his personal shop. 2 it's the his IWD database, a website that includes every wrestler in the world and doesn't constitute notability. 3 doesn't talk about him (list Thatcher, Tracy Williams, Johnny Gargano, Zack Sabre Jr. and Tony Nese) 4 it's the promotion informing about his title win. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 00:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete GNG requires multiple sources. An article cannot pass GNG with just one source. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- GNG specifically says that there is no number requirement, and it deliberately avoids saying that multiple sources are required. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 22:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete No notable wrestler. Only worked on a regional level, no substantial covarage about him by reliable sources. just 4 sources. (his shop, his profile in a database, third source doesn't mention him and a title change informed by the promotion itself) HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 00:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete It is a kind of WP:TOOSOON for me. The subject has competed only in junior level competitions. Abishe ( talk) 19:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 06:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Vincent Wolanin

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

With just 7 Google News press mentions (mostly trivial mentions), this businessman fails WP:BIO. Bbarmadillo ( talk) 21:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep I'd argue that the Google News results are something of a mixed bag rather than writing them off entirely. While some of them may just be local coverage of construction projects, there's also an NYT article that leans pretty heavily on Wolanin's outlook on private aviation. In addition, there's an article from a paper in Portsmouth, UK discussing his involvement in a bid to buy Portsmouth Football Club, a deal that, moving outside the immediate Google News results, was also covered by the BBC and The Independent. The Portsmouth stuff ends up dovetailing with the music side of things as it looks like he got involved through being Brian Howe/Bad Company's manager. I think the variety of Wolanin's projects precludes merging the page with others, so I hope to see the page stand and invite additional contributions. RicoBall ( talk) 06:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 01:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep primarily due to the NYT article, so there are a couple sources to work with. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 01:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 05:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus, with more slightly support for keeping than deletion. Editors who have raised sources in support of keeping are encouraged to make improvements to the article accordingly. BD2412 T 02:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply

WildStar (Image Comics)

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

Non-notable superhero who fails WP:GNG. I only found one listicle he appears in. His series appears similarly non-notable. _{ZXCVBNM (
TALK)} 21:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (
TALK)} 21:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (
TALK)} 21:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep While the article could use better sourcing, the notability is certainly there: character's own limited series and regular series from major publisher Image Comics, TPB collection, numerous guest appearances in Image titles, considered part of the Image Universe. VERY notable creators, Al Gordon & Jerry Ordway. Wildstar still appearing in Savage Dragon 20+ years later indicates long-term staying power, admittedly as a guest/supporting character. Character is not a major cultural force like Spawn, but solidly notable enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

See WP:NOTINHERITED. There has to be verifiable evidence that the character is notable, from outside sources. My search did not find almost any of those._{ZXCVBNM (
TALK)} 19:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - The article lacks sources detailing critical reception or any real world info in general. Fails WP:GNG. TTN ( talk) 12:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, but the article needs to focus more on the comic series. Most sources are print because to its age, but they do exist. Oddly enough, the most notable thing about Wildstar (and the topic of most coverage) is the way it was canceled, which isn't even mentioned in the current article. Argento Surfer ( talk) 23:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. The article doesn't cite any independent sources. My BEFORE fails to show anything that is not in-universe PLOT summary or such. Do ping me if better sources are found and I'll reconsider my vote. Also open to SOFTDELETE through redirect if anyone suggests a good choice, such terms can be plausible for searching. On that note, I considered whether we couldn't salvage this by rewriting this into an article about the comic she debuted in ( WildStar: Sky Zero), but I couldn't find any decent reviews to make an argument it may pass WP:NBOOK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 06:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 05:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

~~Weak~~ keep. NOTINHERITED is not a good fit in this case. With one change to the lead, this article is now about the comic book titles as well as the character. NOTINHERITED is more fitting if he was a member of a team title or a supporting character in someone else's title. We don't need splits like Cable (comics) & Cable (comic book) or Excalibur (comic book) & Excalibur (comics), as this is confusing and often one article will just be forgotten (that Cable page should be moved to (character), now that I think about it).
I actually wasn't going to weigh in since I only had easy access to one print source, but I will WP:AGF in Argento Surfer's comment about the series' cancellation. It would be nice if we could cite that somehow... probably buried in a Wizard issue somewhere.
Anyway, in terms of finding sources, WildStar has a review entry in The Slings & Arrows Comic Guide (p. 644-645) and was listed as "Recommended" (for the miniseries, at least). It also offers passing mention that the cancellation on the ongoing was after 3 issues, but nothing detailed. This listicle isn't awesome, but it at least offers real-world insight into creation beyond just PLOT (probably the same one found in the nominator's BEFORE). - 2pou ( talk) 20:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- To expand on my earlier comment, Wildstar was part of the second wave of comics from Image and was not created by founders of the company. Image received a lot of negative press for missing scheduled releases, and they canceled nearly all the comics created by non-founders with little/no warning. This was controversial because the canceled books were no worse at meeting their deadlines than the continuing ones, and some had never fallen behind. Most/all of the second wave received lots of promotional press, reviews, and coverage of their cancellation/continuation at other publishers. I would confidently say that, if an editor were so inclined, there is enough material to create a GA class article about the series. Sources include Wizard, Hero Illustrated and (probably) Modern Masters #13. Argento Surfer ( talk) 20:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment Another possible source here. Definitely more along the lines of a blog than hard journalism, but does show continued interest in the character 20+ years on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Weak keep If the extra sources mentioned here are added, I think it would just scrape over the line for notability. Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 07:32, 22 March 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) Störm (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Amir Ali Majid

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

No significant coverage found other than some mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep per coverage in Dawn and The Sunday Times and as a recipient of Sitara-i-Imtiaz. Solo Samaritan ( talk) 11:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 20:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 13:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 05:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep per Solo Samaritan and also the later sources about his legal career and how it ended. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:29, 18 March 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) xinbenlv ^{Talk,
Remember to "ping" me} 05:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Technology

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

Private school, no coverage found, fails WP:GNG.

Note: The college is not a degree-awarding institute, but it is affiliated with the Bahauddin Zakariya University (which awards degrees). Störm (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. It doesn't have to award its own degrees to be classed as a degree-awarding institution. British polytechnics didn't actually award their own degrees either, but nobody in their right mind would ever have thought of deleting them. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep It's important enough that this institute is affiliated with a major university of Pakistan – Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan and it is also accredited by Pakistan Engineering Council. Note above also that this article has been nominated three times before and survived each time. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 17:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply
None of the Keep !votes are based on independent coverage or even assert that such coverage exists. I am unable to find more than a couple passing mentions in RS. If not deleted, it could be merged to List of universities in Pakistan. But I'm not convinced the coverage even justifies inclusion on that list. b uidh e 16:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There are no sources which support a claim of notability. My WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing. 4meter4 ( talk) 02:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: GF relist, imo further discussion needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Night fury 11:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 05:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep per keepers, and Wikipedia editorship has considered this before. -- Doncram ( talk) 05:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) xinbenlv ^{Talk,
Remember to "ping" me} 05:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Velalar College of Engineering and Technology

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

Cited sources are merely passing mentions (see WP:42), And Advertisement DMySon 10:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete I would have speedied it since except for the lede it's 100% copyvio directly from the website. No appearance of notability, blatantly promo. JamesG5 ( talk) 10:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Per nomination. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 08:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. Pn tham has revised to eliminate copyvio and promotional language, and I have done some minor cleanup of bare URLs and formatting issues. My !vote to keep, though, is based on understanding that approvals by national accreditation agencies and national technical councils, and official affiliation with Anna University constitute significant, substantial, reliable, independent, verifiable secondary sources. The "passing mentions" represent a rigorous process of ensuring quality of a college's programs, faculty, accountability, and support for students' education. That, and inherent difficulties finding indexed publications for international sources, lead me to rely upon evidence of regional accrediting and technical councils as sufficient for notability. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 19:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep: it is a degree college. Article is cited with the sources. Passes WP:N. GargAvinash ( talk) 23:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete unless reliable coverage can be found in independent sources, I'm not finding it. I don't accept the argument that accreditation creates an independent source. Schools are not exempt from GNG. b uidh e 00:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per the RFC on outcomes of educational institutes. This is a private college with nothing noteworthy. KartikeyaS343 ( talk) 16:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- That highly controversial RfC only applied to secondary schools, not degree-awarding tertiary colleges. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES due to lack of references. My WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing. 4meter4 ( talk) 00:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 05:37, 12 March 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Meemaste

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

There is basically no notability or even anything in the article. There hasn't been anything in it since 2010. Analog Horror, ( Speak) 03:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 12. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep as per WP:GEOLAND. Recognized land as in the census. Would consider a redirect to parent district. tLoM (The Lord of Math) ( Message) 04:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND as a recognised village/settlement, for example, here is an announcement of the construction of a shared path to link some villages including Meemaste with Põlva ("Toetuse abil on kavas rajada nelja kilomeetri pikkune valgustatud jalgratta- ja jalgtee Peri piikonna külade (Peri, Meemaste, Metste, Rosma) ühendamiseks Põlva linnaga."). Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, as it meets WP:GEOLAND. ExRat ( talk) 02:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:08, 18 March 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) 09:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Stonks

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

Unremarkable internet meme, not enough coverage or sources to demonstrate notability CatcherStorm ^talk 02:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 02:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:WEBCRIT, also possibly fails A7, in that case speedy delete. dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 03:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete on account of what was mentioned above. Unless it can be updated to meet WP:WEBCRIT and A7, then it should be deleted. Stub articles don't get a free bypass. Mattx8y ( talk) 13:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - I am the creator of the article and I say you can go ahead and delete it. I want Wikipedia to become a better place. Analog Horror, ( Speak) 16:53, 18 March 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) 09:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Black Point, Indiana

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

This is a geographic feature of Lake Wawasee, not a distinct populated place. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Stub was created from erroneous GNIS data which often labels landforms as "populated places". – dlthewave ☎ 02:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 02:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 02:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete I am unable to find evidence that this is a legally recognized place and I can find no RS. Fails WP:GEOLAND#2 Lightburst ( talk) 02:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete as it fails WP:GEOLAND. dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 02:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
delete Looking back far enough in the topos, the font for this label indicates it is a physical feature and not a settlement. I can't find any sign that it is even discussed as a neighborhood. Mangoe ( talk) 18:19, 12 March 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. By raw vote totals this is a clear keep. However, we don’t vote at AfD - many editors explicitly call them !vote (not votes) for a reason. So in closing this I first gave little weight to the many ‘’many’’ ILIKEIT, IDONTLIKEIT, !votes by those advancing both keep and delete. Instead the positions deserving full consideration on the keep side are those suggesting notability per WP:LISTN, especially now that the list has been curated to only include those people who with existing articles (demonstrating notability). Those with policy based explanations on the delete side focus on WP:BLP and various aspects of WP:NOT. Some delete !voters suggest LISTN has not been met because the list is indiscriminate, while some keep !voters challenge whether BLP has been violated owing to the inclusion of only notable people from verifiable sources, and because some degree of the delete position violates WP:CRYSTAL. Ultimately there is a consensus that a list of deaths would be notable and comply with other policies and guidelines if adequately sourced (though note that WP:BLP does apply to the recently deceased). That is not this list and so that consensus is not binding here. Instead we have two policies weighing against a guideline which explicitly says that it must comply with one of those policies. As there is a consensus (not unanimous but a consensus) that it does not comply with WP:NOT, this lessens the impact of the guideline. And as BLP, the other policy, suggests we act conservatively the outcome is to delete rather than merely move to a List of Deaths (and the accompanying change of scope of the article) as a means to WP:ATD. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

List of people with coronavirus disease 2019

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

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

If you really want a policy/guideline reason, I'd say delete per WP:IINFO (edit: and also WP:NOTNEWS). But morally, I think WP:Ignore all rules is stronger here. This is utterly ridiculous. For the inevitable arguments to keep per the list notability guidelines, I say ignore all rules and screw the list notability guidelines. It's about as easy to keep a garbage list per them as it is to indict a ham sandwich – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 01:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 01:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 01:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 01:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 01:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 01:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

There are about 40 other articles in Category:Lists of people by medical condition. – Uanfala (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC). To avoid a double standard, either keep the article or delete the whole category.-- Maxaxax ( talk) 16:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete ~~Oppose~~ I don't think this list is useless. There are people of interest who may contract COVID-19 (or already have). That said, I did request a name change to protect privacy rights and limit to notable people, see the article talk page. Renerpho ( talk) 02:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC) - Change to Conditional keep. Wait for the result of my RfC to move to a different name. Keep if moved to include notable, delete otherwise. Renerpho ( talk) 03:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC) - Alternatives that I would support in strong favour of a deletion are currently discussed on the article talk page, including an editnotice. I really want to keep this list. Renerpho ( talk) 04:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Regarding the argument about WP:IINFO - I think the suggested name change takes care of that. And I fail to see how WP:NOTNEWS applies, as this list merely collects information from reliable sources. Information about a quickly changing subject that is making news, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Renerpho ( talk) 02:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Change vote from keep to delete. The discussion below convinced me to change my mind. In particular, I have concerns that this is recentism and - despite my attempt to avoid this with the editnotice - a BLP/privacy nightmare. I'm not sure if the list will grow out of hand, but even if it doesn't, it is still a bad idea. Renerpho ( talk) 01:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The name change is redundant. Only notable people who meet WP:BIO are being added anyway. JeanPassepartout ( talk) 10:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSTATS updating the list when we get to millions is just a ridiculous proposition. Not really the job of our encyclopedia to have a dynamic list which will stretch into the millions, or perhaps billions. We may also face some WP:BLP issues and some HIPPA law violations. Lightburst ( talk) 02:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Comment It's managable if only people who meet WP:BIO are added. No redlinks. BLP is not an issue if reliably cited. JeanPassepartout ( talk) 02:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
~~Delete~~ per NOTNEWS, NOTSTATS and IINFO. Even right now, the title suggests that notable people are the only ones being included. Changing the title won't change the underlying fact that a list of people who contracted a common disease is not encyclopedic, and has the potential to balloon into an indiscriminate list of trivia. Category:Lists of people by medical condition appears to only have lists of people who have rarer and deadlier diseases. epicgenius ( talk) 02:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Then how about deleting it when we get to the millions? Right now, this is a pretty short list. What will happen to it in the future may concern us in the future. Renerpho ( talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- There are only about 400 names on List of HIV-positive people (which covers roughly 40 years) by restricting it to those who meet WP:BIO. JeanPassepartout ( talk) 02:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  - I guarantee that this will balloon to hundreds, if not thousands, of notable people. Should we also create a list of notable people who caught the flu or have a fever and have been reported in the news about that? Why should we wait to hold a deletion discussion until there are millions of infections (which is not a matter of if but when)? This is an indiscriminate list, even if it covers only notable people. I think all the "list of people who have X disease" should be deleted for this reason, but this is another matter. epicgenius ( talk) 14:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    - Comment Should we also create a list of notable people who caught the flu [...]? We literally have such a list. Renerpho ( talk) 04:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
      - We do not have List of pandemic H1N1/09 virus cases. We do not have a list for the 1968 flu pandemic, or the one before that in 1957/8. We do have one for Spanish flu, but the world had a much smaller population then and there are far fewer reliable sources to draw on. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
        It is not that "the world had a much smaller population then" it is that Wikipedia is super presentist. I mean the birth-year we have the most articles in is 1989. Yes, 1989. If there is anything that drives this it is a combination of the fact that there were fewer pro-sports in 1918 than today, and even in pro-sports we have an excessive over covering of the present, and for legislature members, a group that are considered default notable, we have an excessive over coverage of present people. I just created an article on someone who was a multiple term governor of Yucatan in 1910 and a few years before. Wikipedia is overly presentist. That is what will make this list unmaintanable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- On further consideration, I'd only keep entries where the person is both notable and has died as a result so this is a conditional keep. epicgenius ( talk) 04:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
KEEP (Oppose). I'm in agreement with Renerpho. It's not at all useless. Also – common disease? It's not a common disease yet (and how about reconsidering deleting it if it reaches the millions). We have a page of notable people with HIV or AIDS (" List of HIV-positive people"), and HIV/AIDS is 310x times more common. The BLP concerns are legit though, so I definitely support the name change to include "notable", though. Paintspot Infez ( talk) 02:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Consider that a person's medical history is private. Especially in the US. See HIPPA laws and privacy. Lightburst ( talk) 02:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Consider that if reliably sourced, this is not an issue. Same rules apply to List of HIV-positive people and List of medical professionals who died during the SARS outbreak. In the case of Tom Hanks he made it public on social media that he and his wife tested positive for coronavirus. Agree it should only be notable people who meet WP:BIO and actually have articles about them, no redlinks. JeanPassepartout ( talk) 02:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Your argument appears to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Lightburst ( talk) 15:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Which is not a problem. If it's via inherent notability then "other stuff exists" can be a perfectly valid argument. Renerpho ( talk) 04:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

HIV/AIDS might have been 310 times more common when you wrote your comment, Paintspot, but that ratio is down to 265x a day later! This will almost definitely overtake HIV/AIDS. Moreover, the experience of having the disease will, for most people, be far less significant. So HIV/AIDS is not a good comparison. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment - ...Also, past that, whatever happens with the "List of people" section, I think we should 1000% KEEP the Deaths section (which wouldn't ever become very long, and wouldn't be a WP:BLP issue). Thoughts Paintspot Infez ( talk) 02:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment on comment - Even then there should be no redlinked names in the list. JeanPassepartout ( talk) 02:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. It's not useless. BUT redlinked names should be removed. JeanPassepartout ( talk) 02:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. I think Lightburst said it best. Drmies ( talk) 02:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Oppose (KEEP). I largely agree with Renerpho and Paintspot. The list already only contains notable persons whose condition was revealed in reliable media so perhaps a fix in the title is in order. The nature of the list isn't all that different from the one on notable persons who contracted the Spanish flu. Having a list of HIV-positive people is also an interesting point raised by Paintspot. This pandemic is already seeing unprecedented measures being taken in certain countries, so to call it a just a common disease falls flat. Also worth keeping in mind is the nature of some of these persons, for example the political elite of Iran is heavily affected. Compared to the HIV list, one can find there that many victims of HIV, especially from the time when the virus was first discovered, were gay men who faced a lot of hostility in their societies to begin with. The Spanish flu also coincided with World War I and a lot of turmoil of that era. These lists are no more trivial than listing recipients of military decorations, hosts of sport events, winners of musical contests etc. What I'm saying is, they aren't mere trivia lists if you have the imagination to ascertain their utility. One can learn more if you analyze them, open some linked pages etc. - who were the affected groups, how and why, how it correlates to the spread of the disease in general and so on. I've summed up some of my thoughts and expanded on the thoughts of others, both those in agreement and those in opposition. -- Killuminator ( talk) 02:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I would like to expand a bit in order to address and hopefully alleviate some concerns as well as suggest improvements. The follow text is a copy of my comment on the talk page: I support removing the status column as well. A lot of these people will recover and not everyone will make a grand announcement, in fact some may have already recovered. Having an incorrect status for such people is definitely stigmatizing misinformation that could impact how people around them interact with them after reading this stuff on Wikipedia, an easily accessible free internet encyclopedia. Also, I support getting rid of tables completely and listing the infections chronologically (just like deaths) as it conserves space and has more encyclopedic value. Their exact circumstances of infection, recovery and death should be part of their individual pages. Also, when describing their notability, we should strive for brevity as much as possible. -- Killuminator ( talk) 02:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Oppose (KEEP) I think the article provides useful nontrivial information. Remember ( talk) 03:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep- this disease is not ending, its spreading and spreading fast and across more countries and already a host of famous people have died, there needs to be a list to keep up with this, this isn't likethe SARS virus 2 decades back, this is spreading across the world and believe it or not, but a lot of famous people will contract it and some will die from it, SARS and Swine flu were differnet, they were contained within 2-5 countries, this has spread to opver 100 countries now and already more than 20 known individuals with Wikipedia pages who were famous BEFORE this disease came into being died of it, only a fool would want to delete a list such as this...this is not a case of ontability as majority of ppl making this list of confirmed cases (living and dead) are already notable so ther really isn't a valid reaosn to delete this list which in the next 3 months will get longer and more informative...-- 27.123.137.38 ( talk) 04:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:IINFO. This is an extremely discriminate list of already notable people and who have a notable condition. Will be of historic interest when this thing is all over. Oakshade ( talk) 04:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. I get that there is "ooh-ahh" interest in this page today, but down the line we can expect this list to become extremely large, and the longer it gets, the more trivial such a list becomes. I would not oppose if the list were to strictly focus on notable deaths, but just being sick is not interesting in the long-term. -- Netoholic @ 04:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWS not mandating delete in this case. See above for similar examples . Enforce no redlinks unless interwikilinked ~~and move to List of notable~~no need after editnotice and consistancy with other "List of X victim" articles ... Agathoclea ( talk) 04:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep A notable and well-sourced article.-- Sakiv ( talk) 04:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Strong Oppose (or STRONG KEEP) per User:Remember. 2001:569:74D2:A800:5DBE:65F7:31:7FBE ( talk) 06:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep A notable and well-sourced article of notable persons, of great reader interest. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7C06:37C8:AC02:11FE ( talk) 06:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep It's not useless. We have a page of notable people with Spanish flu ( List of Spanish flu cases), this list is similar to it.-- El caballero de los Leones ( talk) 06:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep A notable lists of notable person who get COVID-19 and well-sourced. Dede2008 ( talk) 06:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep A well sourced notable list Uhooep ( talk) 06:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - This is ENCYCLOPEDIC material. [The opinion is left by Gabinho ( talk | contributions) at 07:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep WP:IINFO; see List of Spanish flu cases. brad. ( talk) 07:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per other comments above, but strong support page move and removal of redlinks without interwikilinks. Jdcooper ( talk) 08:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - I agree with brad., Dede2008 & Oakshade Shilonite 08:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, per all. There seem to be certain people very keen on excluding this information from Wikipedia and I honestly have no idea why. WPancake ( talk) 10:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Despite all the starry-eyed claims here, I've already removed two un-sourced claims. And there are about 20 red links in the list. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 11:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- I could only find one recent edit where you removed a claim. The referenced source did exactly say what was claimed though. Agathoclea ( talk) 12:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  - The reference I've removed is here, which had been used to substantiate the claim that Mudiay had tested positive for coronavirus. The page says "The NBA's statement did not reveal whether Gobert or Mudiay tested positive for coronavirus, nor did it identify any other player." which means we don't know if Mudiay is positive for coronavirus or not. It says "The NBA said it learned the unidentified Utah player tested positive", which means we don't know who the player is. Do you read it differently? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 16:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    - Weird. I saw the Rudy Gobert reference where the article said at the time that he did not release the info, but they had other sources. In the meantime he confirmed. So as far as you are concerned I mislooked. My apologies. Agathoclea ( talk) 23:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - so long as all the individual names have specific coverage on people who are infected. Fundamentally not that different with any other "List of [xxx]" name lists. Juxlos ( talk) 11:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. Useful, in my opinion. Thierry Caro ( talk) 11:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. As I said on the WP in french: Even on wikinews, the subject would probably be debated. Moreover, not all the people listed probably did not communicate officially about their health status, so the article is based on a certain press that is fond of this kind of information which, as said above, does not help to understand the phenomenon but is more of an unhealthy voyeurism patiently elaborated in a vast WP:NOR. Respect for privacy, human dignity, lack of hindsight, weak sources... Much more than enough to remove without delay. -- Madelgarius ( talk) 12:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - Unless it's confined to notable people, but even then I'd still lean to delete as if they're notable they will have their own page on which the info could be place. Yrwefilledwithbugs ( talk) 13:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Comment It is and always has been confined to notable people, meaning those who meet WP:BIO and have an article on at least one Wikipedia. Doesn't necessarily have to be the English Wikipedia. JeanPassepartout ( talk) 03:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep The list only has those notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article on it, and has a reference for each entry. This is quite a notable moment in history, and the encyclopedia should have this. Dream Focus 13:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep but modify Not a useless list. Multiple diseases have “notable cases” lists I don’t see why this can’t.--Rockchalk 7 17 13:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Comment What modifications do you suggest? Renerpho ( talk) 04:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, but delete redlinks. As above, multiple diseases have notable cases lists, and due to the excessive spread, and notability of COVID19, this should stay. G1217 ( talk) 16:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure about automatically removing red links. Any member of the Spanish Congress of Deputies is most certainly notable but English WP editors haven't got around to creating articles on all of them in the same way we do like for the New Zealand Parliament. Oakshade ( talk) 17:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

If they have articles on the Spanish language Wikipedia, that would be sufficient to add them. See for example the Iranian politicians who only have articles on the Farsi Wikipedia. JeanPassepartout ( talk) 03:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Done Renerpho ( talk) 04:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep, as long as it only contains notable people (Not people with their own article, as some people don't have an article) Helloimahumanbeing ( talk) 17:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep and list only individuals with Wikipedia articles when sourcing is available. Keep redlinks where interlanguage links exist or where notability is obvious. TJMSmith ( talk) 20:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep There is an RfC going on right now to change the title to indicate it's for notable people. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 22:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete This is ridiculous. This list is going to be massive. Natureium ( talk) 23:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Like all of the 'list of women who have had abortions' lists we've deleted over the years, this is a WP:BLP nightmare in the making and unless a group of editors is willing to patrol or place pending changes on this 24/7, it'll remain that way. Nate • ( chatter) 23:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)× reply
Keep It's a significant list at present and won't be a BLP issue if we stick to notable people and reliable sources. Once we hit thousands I might accept it is too widespread to be a useful list, but not yet. Ringbark ( talk) 23:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete It is only a matter of time before this list gets out of hand with an eventual majority of the world population getting infected eventually much like the flu. This is not news. Shhhhwwww!! ( talk) 02:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Comment The list won't get out of hand. It's not listing every person on the planet who has been diagnosed, only notable people (those who meet WP:BIO and have an article on at least one Wikipedia). JeanPassepartout ( talk) 03:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep WP:IINFO. see List of Spanish flu cases. Kanghuitari ( talk) 03:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment - Editnotice has been proposed to deal with notability and BLP issues. JeanPassepartout ( talk) 05:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment and Strong lean keep - As the news are keep reporting of couple to new noble cases everyday (as of March 13th), as more people who later contact the virus, there no ludicrous reason for deleting it right now as It did start as almost mundane apocalyptic-like proportions by both the site and out of it. Chad The Goatman ( talk) 06:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep agree per above & per WP:IINFO. Idolmm ( talk) 09:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep The nominator by his/her own admission ignores Wikipedia's rules. No valid concerns are offered. Dimadick ( talk) 09:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep (Oppose) It is useful, and WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here, because the impact of this event is certainly going to outlast many events of the present decade (as it did the Spanish flu in the last century, for which we do have a List of Spanish flu cases). Also WP:IINFO is not applicable, as this is only containing notable people for a notable event. And of course, the number of users asking to keep this article is more than enough to disregard completely WP:Ignore all rules (which would be applicable only in blatant cases in which almost everyone agrees, without needing to consider specific rules). I think the nominator's criterion for wanting to delete this list is more related to a personal opinion that doesn't fit with either Wikipedia standards or other similar lists already present in the project. I would just make sure this list contains only notable people with source, but I wouldn't delete it. Eynar Oxartum ( talk) 10:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep We have plenty of such lists, as other have pointed out above. Of course, only notable people with articles, and all reliably sourced - the usual criteria. Edwardx ( talk) 10:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep I suggest it stays for now given it's very notable. However, I believe that after the pandemic is over then this would be a different matter. Then I would agree with removing this article but creating one for people who've died due to COVID-19. JMS Hunt 2020 ( talk) 10:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)JMS Hunt 2020 reply

Wikipedia articles are not meant to cease to be notable. We write for the long term. Either it's notable forever, or it's not. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Extremely useful, and definitely encyclopaedic. Would only break Wikipedia rules if names were not notable people. There are multiple similar lists on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexyeamo ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete this utter stupidity. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- With all due respect, your comment was unhelpful at best. Could you please substantiate your comment with an argument for why this article should be deleted a bit more than just saying delete this "utter stupidity"? Legion ( talk) 18:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Right now, in the early stages, cases like the Trudeaus are being reported, but as the disease spreads, vast numbers of people, and vast numbers of notable people, are going to catch Covid-19 and this list will soon be unworkable. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep as it is useful list to find who contacted virus. For delete comments that it will become too large, see WP:CRYSTAL. Störm (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- @ Störm:, it's not CRYSTAL if epidemiologists are saying HALF the world's population will contract COVID-19 eventually. – Muboshgu ( talk) 14:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTNEWS. Almost half of the world's population is expected to contract COVID-19. This is not at all a defining characteristic that would make for a notable topic for a list. – Muboshgu ( talk) 14:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
keep. As mentioned by others there are several other articles with lists of people infected by a specific disease. This fits with in that tradition. The scope of the article should only be people who are notable (Bluelinked biographies) and for which there is reliable source to prove their having been infected. The fact that this is a global disease an| that it could possibly have a disproportionate impact on “notable” people (because they interact with people who are more likely to travel a lot more) is a factor that is likely to be of importance to the future’s historians. Witty lama 14:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. See List of Spanish flu cases, List of HIV-positive people. Northern Moonlight 15:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Far, far more people are going to get Covid-19 than HIV and Covid-19 is going to be far, far less serious for those people when they catch it than HIV. So I suggest the comparison doesn't hold. I note that isn't a List of pandemic H1N1/09 virus cases, which is a more comparable situation. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:LISTN.-- Laun chba ller 15:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete It may leads to an unlimited list that invades privacy of living person WP:BLP. The case of a famous Hollywood actor and actress couple is quite a extremely exceptional cases (see abcnews-web 12 March 2020, 23:24) because patients themselves publish online on their own. It is not so needed list article. Someone said there is List of HIV-positive people, but it says in header 'may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness'. It is nothing but what proves it is WP:IINFO article. -- Kyuri1449 ( talk) 18:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Note to admin, Above acc is newly active, because his last edit was in 2017. So may be WP:SOCK. 117.18.231.22 ( talk) 19:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

That account has edits from 2012 in their history. Emk9 ( talk) 22:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Definitely not SOCK. Because my main activities are on jpwiki. This uckin illegal IP's message from Yangon, Myanmer shoud be deleted.-- Kyuri1449 ( talk) 05:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

This is definitely WP:UNCIVIL. I recommend striking that out. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Much needed article, which depicts the importance of Coronavirus. Its already being reported in so many international news channels, hence it doesn't affect the privacy of the person by this wikipedia article. -- Naveen N Kadalaveni ( talk) 18:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Definitely useful article. Super Ψ Dro 19:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per Killuminator. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 20:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep as long as we maintain each individual's right to privacy and safety. If they've gone public or it's been reported via an indepedent news source, I think it's valid, relevant to the public interest, and encyclopedic in nature. Jccali1214 ( talk) 20:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - I think it's a good idea. -- Stephen"Zap" ( talk) 20:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per NorthernMoonlight and WP:LISTN. If your argument is going to be "there will be too many people who contract it," then it's quite easy to break the list up into "entertainment", "politician", "sportspeople," etc. as separate articles. MAINEiac4434 ( talk) 21:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment Votes are 48-17 currently in favor of KEEP, including the vote that 117.18.231.22 tagged as a possible sock. MAINEiac4434 ( talk) 22:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Not SOCK, don't worry. -- Kyuri1449 ( talk) 05:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Definitely sock, his last edit was in 2017 [14] and re-active recently. Isn't this strange? 117.18.231.85 ( talk) 08:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

This illegal IP's message from Yangon, Myanmer shoud be deleted (or temporarily ip-blocked). -- Kyuri1449 ( talk) 08:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep as long as individuals on the list themselves are notable. -- AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment For your information : the same vote in french wiki get"strange result" . [15]:Votes are 12-45 currrently in favor of DELETE. Some of the DELETE vote here are from french wiki member Michel1961 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep as long as it refers notable people. ALoopingIcon ( talk) 08:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep and possibly rename the article to include only the notable people. It is reasonable to have such a list of notable people infected. – НСНУ ( talk) 08:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Lists of this nature show our bias toward the recent and the sensational. The intersection is creepy and undignified. This is no more appropriate for the encyclopedia than List of people with colorectal cancer... this can be addressed in individual biographies where it proves notable — if the disease kills them, changes the trajectory of their lives in a meaningful way, or at least receives non trivial attention, like Rudy Gobert or Masoumeh Ebtekar. For everyone else, it’s not even worth mentioning in the bio, never mind a whole list. Let’s delete please -- Y not? 09:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- on second thought, I am okay to keep the list if limited to deaths. It’s really the list of infections that’s creepy and undignified -- Y not? 15:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Conditional Keep - A historic list in the making. Modify the list name to include the word "notable" and add only those names that have their own Wikipedia pages, across languages. Csgir ( talk) 11:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- No need to change the name. Only notable people who meet WP:BIO and have an article on at least one Wikipedia are being added. There is an Editnotice to this effect. JeanPassepartout ( talk) 23:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Strong keep, the nominator claims the list falls under WP:IINFO, but is unable to explain how and why. The call for NOTNEWS is even more laughable, I wonder if he read it beyond the title. He is more credible with the WP:Ignore all rules call, which equals with a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Actually, the list easily meets both WP:SOURCELIST and WP:LISTN, which are our relevant guidelines for lists. I agree with adding "notable people" to the title of the article (about the content, it is already restricted to notable individuals). About the rest, it is only POV and fuss. -- 151.74.230.114 ( talk) 12:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Strong speedy keep And I suggest to overhaul the article to include only notable people that listed. Not all people listed because it would be violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. 36.77.92.39 ( talk) 14:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment on ~~three~~ four previous votes: I have requested a rename to include the word notable on March 12. I withdrew that request on March 13, after an editnotice was created to deal with the problem. Editors are now warned to restrict additions to notable people who have an article about them on at least one Wikipedia. Renerpho ( talk) 02:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Strong keep. Other people have been listed by medical condition as well (HIV, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis and so on). Sources just need to be very strong and clear. -- Quadriplegia ( talk) 17:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Strong speedy keep Certainly WP:NOTNEWS but this list article definitely passes WP:GNG and has been well written with reliable sufficient sources which complies with relevant current information. Abishe ( talk) 18:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. Notable topic, list is well sources, and subject is of tremendous interest to readers. — Hunter Kahn 19:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep (provided it is indeed limited to notable people and kept well-sourced). This is clearly useful information and newsworthy. The main argument against it seems to be that if the disease spreads very widely, it will become so lengthy as to be unmaintainable - well, maybe so, in which case it can be reconsidered then, but we're not at that point yet. In any case, we have other similar lists on common medical conditions ( List of people with epilepsy, List of people with breast cancer, List of people with type 1 diabetes, List of HIV-positive people) and seem to be able to maintain those. Robofish ( talk) 23:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Strong speedy Keep This list is notable and deserves to stay, as this is part of an international event with high noteworthiness. Also the delete reason is not very good. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 23:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. A useful chronicle of the unfolding pandemic. As an aside, it's the sort of information that Wikipedia is uniquely able to provide. Fishal ( talk) 23:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. There should be one central place to store notable people that have been infected with the coronavirus. I do not see any reason in deleting it. However, a high standard for notability should be kept in order to not have the page overflow. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor ( talk) 02:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:BLP, which applies to both living and recently deceased people, and also WP:WEIGHT. It might make sense to have a mention in an article if a notable person has had a reliably sourced infection; how big the mention is, or even if a mention makes sense depends on how long the article is. But an entire list is over the top. I dream of horses ^{(talk)
(contribs)} _{Remember to {{
ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 02:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ I dream of horses: Comment Could the WP:WEIGHT problem not be solved with subpages? The main page could serve as a de-facto disambiguation page to each of the sub-topics. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor ( talk) 02:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

There are no BLP issues in this article. JeanPassepartout ( talk) 23:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Provided it is limited to notable, blue-linked people, it would be useful for historians later. Probably (and unusually) it would be a good idea to have "notable" in the title so non-Wikipedians are really clear on its scope. Also, shouldn't it have 2020 in the title and not 2019? Was anyone infected in 2019? Whiteghost.ink ( talk) 07:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

This is never going to be useful for historians later. For most people on this list, catching Covid-19 is going to be a fairly insignificant experience. And probably most people in the world are going to catch it over the next several months: that this or that celebrity got it is trivia. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete (which is a turn around from how I felt a few days ago) When the official UK figure was about 600, the Prime Minister (or maybe someone else at his press concference) said that the probably figure was about 10,000. So the list is likely to only include 6% of those who 'ought' to be listed. Current epidemiological information seems to be that eventually we will nearly all have it with varying degrees of impact, and so the list becomes both unmanageable an irrelevant: we do not have List of people with the common cold. Comparison with List of Spanish flu cases is (no longer) valid: that has stabilised at less than 100 deaths and less than 30 recoveries (from an epidemic estimated to have had 500 million cases). Editors are not posting daily updates mentioned only in the limited media outlets of their particular interest area: the spread of knowledge about 2020 is very different from that about 1919. This is a very short termist article, and while current interest is undeniable, it will eventually be a bit of 2020 recentism. It is (I hope) probably worth having List of deaths due to COVID-19, or at least List of 2020 eaths due to COVID-19 as a record of the early spread, although the more pessimistic forecasts would have us believe that this would become equally unmanageable. Kevin McE ( talk) 12:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - provided it is managed well and only includes notable individuals Spiderone 14:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep because they are notable people. Ivan Humphrey ( talk) 15:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete no different than [[List of people with <insert random disease>]]. We've got hundreds of thousands of people with this specific disease, this is pure trivia. So what if these people are notable. They aren't notable for having the disease. Just like we don't have List of people with cancer, List of people with AIDS, etc... Complete WP:NON-DEFINING/ WP:CRUFT. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

See Category:Lists of people by medical condition, List of Spanish flu cases and List of HIV-positive people. Kanghuitari ( talk) 19:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Since a list of people with cancer may indeed be unmanagable (and also because "cancer" covers a vast spectrum of different diseases), we have List of people with breast cancer, List of people diagnosed with colorectal cancer, List of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer... It is always an option to split the article once it becomes too big. We are not there yet for COVID-19, and it is WP:CRYSTAL to guess if/when we might be! Renerpho ( talk) 20:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comparisons that are either inappropriate or which are woeful failures as lists. The UK chief medical officer forsees 80% of the population contracting it: it is simply not possible to maintain a list that contains 80% of the current people based in Europe (let's assume that UK spread is not going to be very different to other European countries) and comparable percentages of those in the rest of the world. At best, it will be so hopelessly incomplete that it is meaningless and totally unhelpful like List of kidney stone formers which has c. 120 names (just one added in the last year) for a condition that affects up to one sixth of the population, or List of people with tinnitus, which has fewer than 100 names when statistically it should reflect about 10-15% of our notable people. The list will neve do what it purports to do, and therefore can only ever be a failing of Wikipedia to atttempt to record the unrecordable. It is not so much WP:CRYSTAL to say that it will become to big, as it is WP:RECENT to feel it is necessary to have it. Kevin McE ( talk) 20:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I would love for one of those asserting that the list is important or useful to explain what use they think it will have in a few years. Kevin McE ( talk) 20:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I’ve referenced the List of Spanish flu cases many times and it is way beyond a few years since that pandemic - about 100 years to be closer to precise. It is of encyclopedic interest to learn why certain notable people, particularly those who were young, died at that time and it brings historical context to their location and period, and not only to those who died, but this who survived which brings a perspective of age and sometimes economic status. There is zero doubt this will have the same historical interest. Oakshade ( talk) 23:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your reply. I have also referred more than once to the Spanish flu list. That has fewer than 130 names on it, when statistically we should expect it to include about a quarter of the people alive at that time who have an article on one of the Wikipedias. Clearly, that never has, and never will, be a comprehensive list of all the wikinotables who caught that disease. But that is precisely what people are trying to do here (because it is current, because social media makes us aware of many more people, because these are people that current editors feel an engagement with). As time goes on, people catching C19 will draw less attention, and we will be left with List of people who caught C19 in the first couple of months of the outbreak and a few others with high social media profiles or some Wikipedians who follow them. Whatever historical context is provided by the Spanish flu list (and I think it is minimal at best) will not be conveyed by such an article. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. This is precisely the sort of list we should have for our readers. As schools and other major institutions close, our core readership will be looking for this. Bearian ( talk) 00:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete, salt, and block indefinitely all those responsible. Or consign WP:BLP's instructions to show "regard for the subject's privacy" to the dustbin. This list is pure and unadulterated evil. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Comment There are no privacy issues where the information is verifiable by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not censored. JeanPassepartout ( talk) 02:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  - Comment The comment is also an impulsive violation of Wikipedia's policy on civility. -- Killuminator ( talk) 14:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Whereas we have lists of people with certain medical conditions List of people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis which was something well beyond their control (birth defect, genetics, other conditions outside their control), something like this which is, to a degree, something within their control and could have been avoiding is basically labelling this people with a scarlet letter and beyond the scope of our BLP policy to group them like this. This is not to say that, for example, we cannot mention on Tom Hanks page that he was diagnosed with it (its well sourced) It's just that grouping them all as a list or category is against BLP. appropriateness. -- Masem ( t) 00:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Ick. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 01:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Comment "Ick" is not a Wikipedia policy. JeanPassepartout ( talk) 02:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

No, but it was heartfelt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete With already 100k+ cases, this list is well on the way towards absurdity. What happens when there are ten million cases and a thousand entries on this list? Even now, I think this falls under WP:NOTNEWS and being a serious BLP issue. If someone gets Coronavirus, why is that encyclopedically notable? We don't have a list of people who have gotten the flu, and the list of notable 1918 flu patients is a list of those who died, and it's quite short at that. Not only that, but this list is becoming an indiscriminate collection of information. Plus the BLP side: if you had an article and coronavirus, would you want a paragraph talking about how you got the sniffles for a week and the media lost its fracking mind about it? Unless someone has died of it in a notable and confirmed way, I think we oughtn't even discuss it on any page. So use what rationale you want, but I think this page ought be removed per at least WP:IAR. Also to any closer, there are a lot of new, unregistered, and suspect accounts in this thread, please ensure that all votes are kosher. What a nasty business. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 01:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Comment There are no BLP issues where the information is verifiable by reliable sources. JeanPassepartout ( talk) 02:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BASICHUMANDECENCY. WTF people?!?! Ravensfire ( talk) 01:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Comment WP:BLPPRIVACY is not applicable as no personal information beyond their name is included. WP:BLP has strict requirements about using reliable sources for anything else. JeanPassepartout ( talk) 02:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  JeanPassepartout, and that's enough! They shouldn't be mentioned EXACTLY for that reason. Wikipedia is not a place for Name and Shame which is exactly what this article does. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment: I'd like to ask the last few delete votes how it is a violation of someone's privacy to rely information about diagnoses that have been already publicized in reliable sources. This list strictly adheres to WP:BLP. "Ick" and "you have no human decency" are WP:NOTAVOTE. WPancake ( talk) 01:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete At the time of this posting, Wikipedia has articles on over 945,000 living people; this number gets much higher if you count foreign language Wikipedias. The coronavirus is a global pandemic that will infect a good portion of the people on this list; even if slightly more than 2% get infected this article will have 20,000 names on it. This is an indiscriminate collection of information. I've seen editors compare this list to articles like List of HIV-positive people or List of people with type 1 diabetes. Even assuming these other articles are appropriate (which I do not necessarily believe to be true), they are different because they document people with life-long disabilities; the vast majority of people who get coronavirus will recover without issue. This article would be far more comparable to List of people who got the flu, List of people who got H1N1 or List of people who broke a bone. I also believe that generally privacy rights are an issue. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Comment if the list gets big there are ways to handle that. JeanPassepartout ( talk) 02:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  - I gave a absurdly low number to illustrate my point; realistically I would be amazed if the number of notable people infected didn't exceed 50%. Regardless, an indiscriminate list is still indiscriminate even if broken down into dozens of sub-articles. Spirit of Eagle ( talk)
Delete - Inappropriate subject for a list, likely to become unwieldy within weeks if not days, not a defining feature of someone's life. As a side note, I find it singularly unhelpful for the (apparent) article creator to be attempting to individually argue with each delete !voter. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment - The list of deaths seems a certain keep; I can see cases both ways on the list of illnesses. I'd ditch that per NOTNEWS. Carrite ( talk) 03:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, however remove redlinked names. QueerFilmNerd^talk 04:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep and rename List of coronavirus disease deaths or similar, per rationale put forward by Lightburst, epicgenius, Netoholic, Shhhhwwww!!, Bondegezou, Muboshgu, Y not?, Kevin McE, CaptainEek, Spirit of Eagle and Carrite, except instead of delete, limit scope; medical professionals are saying that a very large portion of humanity will catch this, most with light symptoms, and many others will have it and not even know it, making it akin to List of people with fever, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is a case of WP:RECENTISM, where understandably there is interest due to the current shock value, but not likely to be interesting in ten years time. A death list OTOH is both more notable and more manageable, along the lines of List of pneumonia deaths. StonyBrook ( talk) 05:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete as an indiscriminate list. Satisfying prurient interest is not Wikipedia's role. See Category:Lists of living people for examples of suitable not-indefinitely-expanding lists, and notice that Category:Lists of dead people does not exist. Please do not leave a WP:BADGERING comment, and particularly do not demonstrate a misunderstanding of WP:NOTCENSORED which is irrelevant to this discussion. There are 945,000 articles in Category:Living people. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Strong keep the delete !votes are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the policies they keep quoting. I call WP:SNOW on getting a consensus. DigitalPanda ( talk) 08:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete it's going to be too difficult to keep this list BLP compliant. Some names have been added based only on tweets. Mr Ernie ( talk) 09:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Incubate/Move to wikidata I don't personally think it belongs in the encyclopedia but it has some use, something on wikidata connecting biographies tested positive for it or something?? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment some of the statements above miss the point. We have only 945,000 articles on living people, so we will not "get millions" of people on this list limited to notable people. The big question is though, is someone notable for playing the Olympics in 1964, or who was a one-hit wonder in the 1980s, really worth including if they get this disease? I really do not know. Some of me thinks for some cases this might prompt us to ask if we have treated too many people as notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment A lot of victims of HIV were actors, playwrights and people otherwise involved in arts and entertainment who were by any measure part of the cultural elite. It was not the political elite as we have seen suffering from COVID-19 in Iran, but many of the victims were very elite in their own way. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete There are too many people who get COVID-19 and are asymtomatic for this to be a defining characteristic. The disease has spread too broadly for having it to really be in any way notable. I am not even sure in the long run it will even be worth mentioning in every biography we have on a person who developed COVID-19 that they did so. The mass list is not worth having. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment Since each Wikipedia has its own notability guidelines, we should confine this list to people who have articles on the English Wikipedia. If you feel that someone is notable enough to be included and does not have an article, go through the process of creating the article before putting them on the list. This list otherwise would be used to do an end run around English-Wikpedia notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment Each Wikipedia has different rules. So that French Wikipedia won't keep this article has no direct barring on us. I understand the "but Iranian and Spanish parliament members are clearly notable" argument. I still think we should create those articles and then add them to this list, not put the cart before the horse. It would do much good in breaking the Amerocentricity of Wikipedia if we did things in that order. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment Why is there also a seemingly similar discussion on the talk page? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
I support a deletion because of WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWS. I must say that, (at least) most of the people who oppose the deletion have not yet given even one vaild reason, and criteria for defining "notable people" in the "notable people" lists, which has not yet been defined in the list notability guidelines should be figured out (If the current notability guidelines are the only criteria, then it has no difference with no criterion). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, anyway. Related discussion in Chinese Wikipedia (for reference only). Σαν μο σα^{The Trve Lawe of free Monarchies} 14:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep a much needed data on high-profile people with covid-19. Mimihitam ( talk) 15:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

It isn't 'data', it is a list of random people, compiled while the media still saw test results worth commenting on. And (unless you know something that those investigating the disease appear not to), it won't be 'people with COVID 19' it will be 'people who have had COVID 19'. Or rather, the very small subset of people who had it, got tested for it, got reported by the media, and were somehow considered worth adding to the list. Even ignoring the blatant violation of WP:BLP, it is Wikipedia data-mining at its very worst. Intrusive, obnoxious, and utterly useless. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - Sweet mercy! If there was ever a moment to invoke WP:IAR to delete, salt and bury an article under a ten story tall concrete tomb, this would be that moment. It is an unmitigated blessing to the world that Wikipedia did not exist in the 1940s, as AndyTheGrump's suggestion that we would have an article entitled "List of Jews known to be hiding in Nazi-occupied Europe" is near-certainly correct and – what's worse – dozens of editors would defend it because well sourced and notable. You're all so concerned with whether we can have such an article, that scarcely a thought has passed on whether we should have such an article. And no, I am no more fond of the few other such lists (for the Spanish Flu and HIV for example) that exist. Mr rnddude ( talk) 15:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment There are many negative side with personal! I can't believe my eye to read the delete votes. Shame on you! 37.111.43.38 ( talk) 16:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep: especially area for notable deaths. If notable infected list gets too long, then split into different sections or pages, based on major areas or countries. HIPA issues are taken cars of once person self reports or reported in multiple sources. Iain ( talk) 03:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Note: The above !vote isn't mine, but I'm personally transcluding it here from the article's discussion page, where it was added. It didn't show up here due to formatting issues. WPancake ( talk) 17:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Saw this on Jimbo's talk page and it can be deleted per various WP:NOT issues.-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Thanks for letting us know where the recent bloc votes come from. It is wild a violation of WP:CIVIL to snitch to the site's head admin about how "evil" people who contribute to an article you don't like are. Seeing this, I echo the previous sentiment of applying WP:SNOW to whatever result this AfD might have. This is ridiculous. WPancake ( talk) 17:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

You seem to have something of a misunderstanding of when WP:SNOW is applicable. As for 'snitching' and civility, I'd take such concerns more seriously if this wasn't a discussion about a gross violation of WP:BLP policy. Some things deserve snitching. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

You, and everyone else calling for a deletion, have consistently failed to prove how this article fails WP:BLP. It includes only self-reported and reliably reported cases. Your argument seems to amount entirely to pearlclutching and WP:ADHOM about how horrible and disgusting the article and its supporters are, based on your very own subjective sense of morality. This is, at its core, censorship. At least those calling for the application of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules are being more intelectually honest. Moral crusading is not a reason for deletion. WPancake ( talk) 18:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Evidently we can add WP:NOTCENSORED to a list of things you don't understand. As for WP:ADHOM, it isn't generally advisable to cite it while making ad hominem arguments yourself. And the article is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy. Anyone who can't see why an inevitably incomplete list of random people who have contracted a communicable disease that is almost certainly going to infect 70% of the world's population isn't an intrusion into privacy should probably be banned from Wikipedia altogether. Or that's my perspective on the matter anyway. Which I'm sure you wouldn't wish to be censored... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Sir, you were asked to explain how the article fails WP:BLP and failed miserably. The claims that almost every human being will be affected by covid is just a blatant example of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Wikipedia is based on reliably sourced facts, not on speculations. There is no intrusion into privacy as the list is reliably sourced, for every individual of the list there is an ample choice of dozens/hundreds of primary and secondary sources, and the information is in the subjects' biographic articles anyway, the same way they mention any other mayor disease or accident they had in their life. I would be curious to know why covid is such a special case to be censored, as we had disease-related lists and categories for decades and noone ever complained, or maybe do you suddendly want to remove the thousands diseases mentioned in WP biographies? In both cases stop insulting other editors, and add yourself to the list of users who don't understand WP:BLP, or to the list of users who knowingly misuse the WP:BLP argument, or maybe just to the list of users who confuse WP:BLP and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- 151.74.230.114 ( talk) 21:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

"You, and everyone else calling for a deletion, have consistently failed to prove how this article fails WP:BLP" That is a thoroughly ridiculous comment. Just because something does not breach WP:BLP does not mean that it should be the defining principle of a list. Please have the decency to remove this blanket accusation to the intellect and integrity of those who have called for deletion. As to the unregistered contributor's suggestion that there is a breach of WP:CRYSTAL, nobody is asking for the encyclopaedia to carry that claim as an unsourced opinion, so the accusation is meaningless. But not as meaningless as a list that will only ever be more remarkable for those it never will, and never could, include. Kevin McE ( talk) 21:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

All I'm saying is the majority of delete votes seem to hinge on supposed, unproven BLP issues. I'm certainly not saying that every delete vote is based on such reasoning, but most of them are and it is a completely void complaint. A "blanket accusation to the intellect and integrity"? Give me a break. WPancake ( talk) 21:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

What you said was "everyone else calling for a deletion": maybe you ought to revise the meaning of 'every'. If you accept that there are valid reasons to propose deletion other than BLP, then debunking the BLP argument establishes nothing about the validity of the list. Kevin McE ( talk) 22:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment I have never said this article violates BLP. I have said this article is grouping people by a trait that is not defining in any way to the people involved. Sometimes there may be reasons to have lists that do that, but this is not one of them. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per Lightburst — Ched ( talk) 18:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep—maybe narrowing its scope to deaths, or move to Wikidata as a compromise. Like others, I do not see how NOT or BLP is failed. I believe that any case of IAR is outweighed by the sheer usefulness of this article, that won't have the readership if it goes to Wikidata. It is undoubtedly useful for readers and undoubtedly meets GNG. — J947 ^{(
user |
cont |
ess)}, at 19:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment I don't usually !vote in response to threads on Jimbo's talk page but it's worth pointing out that this discussion has been mentioned there. I am worried about this article violating the Topsy rule where it just growed and violated WP:NOT.-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete What a fucking embarrassment to the "global encyclopedia" this is. These people are not linked together, and having in one point in their lives (chances are high that they will recover) a disease is not a defining biographical trait. Cue Got: "Shame *dingdingding* shame *dingdingding* shame!" Zaathras ( talk) 22:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete: Per Johnuniq, this may turn out to be an indiscriminate list, which is not one of the things that Wikipedia is. As such, its deletion at the present moment should be strongly considered. — Javert2113 ( Siarad.| ¤) 23:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Request for comment I am reconsidering changing my vote. I previously said I really want to keep this list, but I am no longer sure about that. ~~This is not a second vote (my "conditional keep" from above stands for now), but~~ Jimmy Wales's statement made me think. I'd be more confident with my vote if the other "keepers" could explain again what they consider the appropriate step if this list got out of hand - by becoming too big, a BLP nightmare, or suffer from reduced notability once this ceases to be recent news, - and why they think that neither of these is a likely outcome. Renerpho ( talk) 23:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete To the extent that BLPs are involved, the issue is whether the diagnosis is of encyclopedic value to those BLPs. Where the person is non-notable at all, there is no doubt that a non-notable attribute of a non-notable person is notable enough for Wikipedia. It isn't. And the fact is that we do not list "List of People who have had Measles" (or other diseases not especially notable for those persons), indicates that lists of non-notable attributes even of notable people are not of actual encyclopedic value. My position is that we might as well have a list of people with false teeth, list of people with plastic surgery, and a few thousand other such lists. I try to vote "Keep" at AfD if there is any valid reason to keep, (and I am known for this). Here, I find the case for deletion quite compelling. And not as a matter of "consensus" but a matter of specific policy. Collect ( talk) 23:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. NOTNEWS, IINFO, and above all m:DICK. Guy ( help!) 23:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Given the transmissability of this, this isn't a notable trait. If it was, we'd have to make lists for everyone who was infected with the Spanish flu or SARS, and any reasonable observer would call foul on those. This is egregious naming-and-shaming that flies in the face of our BLP policy. — A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 23:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Based both on BLP policy and the utter ridiculousness of such a list. Eventually it would consist many many thousands of names.-- I am One of Many ( talk) 00:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per extremely compelling nom. -- JBL ( talk) 01:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:COMMONSENSE. SpicyMilkBoy ( talk) 02:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Expanding on my rationale: this is not like the list of people with HIV or cancer, because those are chronic diseases that severely affect one's life. Coronavirus, as far as we can tell, is not. You either get over it after a couple weeks or you die. (A list of notable deaths is, IMO, a valid article idea, but this is not. And presumably some people will have chronic sequelae from the disease, but this article's scope is anyone who's ever tested positive). The fact that some celebrity had a cough for a few weeks is gossip, not encyclopedic content, and yes, it is a BLP issue to give undue weight to trivial incidents, even if the media covers them. We don't have "list of people with influenza" or "list of people with norovirus", because that is obviously silly. Coronavirus does get more news coverage than those diseases, but that is WP:RECENTISM. And if the virus ends up infecting 50–80% of the population as some models project, the list will be utterly indiscriminate and useless. SpicyMilkBoy ( talk) 02:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Note to admins the recent bloc of delete !votes come after canvassing on Jimbo's talk page. JeanPassepartout ( talk) 02:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
I came here from a bot-generated WP:AIV report about a LTA sockpuppet that had edited the article. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 22:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep How is it failing BLP? This is being covered extensively in the news and the list is comprised of high-profile people. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 02:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment - To repeat: I think the deaths of WP-notable people from coronavirus-SARS is an encyclopedic list; the list of illnesses, especially those with red-linked names, is personal health newsy news and is not. I hope that this change is made no matter how this particular debate ends and that only deaths are listed. Carrite ( talk) 03:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete It is below any morale and I don't see any encyclopedic value in this article. Furhermore, taking into consideration how the event unfold, I think this might hurt people as they potentially might be targeted. In Ukraine, people attacked buses with the people on quarantine. Therefore, it is a legal matter and also a matter of basic dignity. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:51F0:D0B0:8E21:6B6E ( talk) 03:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment This user doesn't make any edit! Idolmm ( talk) 12:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per the nom by Deacon Vorbis, and also per Lightburst, epicgenius, Netoholic, Shhhhwwww!!, Bondegezou, Muboshgu, Y not?, Kevin McE, CaptainEek, Spirit of Eagle and Carrite. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 03:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. This is intrusive and possibly a breach of BLP. We don't have lists for People with Cancer etc so this disease is no different. Report deaths, but not every recovered victim. WWGB ( talk) 04:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep: I’m not sure how this is BLP violation. The people are notable and there are reliable sources. The list isn’t WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list might be messy, but afd is not for cleanup. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 04:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Of course, it is indiscriminate. Let's not create a list a for every disease, showing every victim. Maybe make a list/article of people who are notable for their involvement in fighting the disease, who were also killed (or seriously harmed) by it. This article really tells us nothing about the disease. -- Rob ( talk) 05:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Viruses don't care about fame. Jvpnox ( talk) 06:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Listing notable people who contract a pandemic disease which is probably going to eventually infect billions, including a significant percentage of all living notable people and who are mostly going to recover without notable lasting effect is neither useful nor manageable. Even a list of notable people who actually die of the disease may become unwieldy. Also, this only includes some of the people who are both notable and who have been diagnosed, presumably with symptoms, some of which may be mild. It can never be even nearly complete, and as far as I can see, no-one has explained how it could be useful to the reader. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep: unless you think we should also delete this category from Wikipedia too. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 09:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - I'm not seeing any compelling reasons among the keep !votes to retain this article. Just because names of people (notable or not) can be sourced and verified doesn't necessarily mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, especially when no context/background can ever be provided for every single entry in a list format of this sort. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep but tighten inclusion criteria so entries are required to be blue-linked and cite at least one high-quality secondary source. (i.e. no primary sources such as Twitter or Facebook and no low-quality, trivial news sources). I have read through the arguments for deletion and, disregarding frivolous or non-policy-based rationales, there seems to be two main reasons advanced. 1) The list publicises sensitive medical information of living subjects, violating WP:BLP. 2) The list violates, or will soon violate, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as an enormous number of notable people will be infected. These two legitimate issues can be solved by applying the proposed criteria.

The proposed criteria should resolve any BLP concerns (1), as they ensure high-quality sources will have already publicised and confirmed the case before it is added to this list. The criteria will also resolve concerns of WP:INDISCRIMINATE (2), as they ensure only notable and significant cases will be included. Those who are concerned the number of entries could number in the thousands or even higher as the disease spreads overlook that media focus on individual cases will decrease as the number of overall cases increases. High-quality secondary sources will not write about every single notable subject that contracts the virus, as there will simply be too many to cover.

I'm aware of the pitfalls of WP:OSE, but in this case the featured list on HIV-positive people is an excellent example of how this type can be done well, ensuring only well-referenced entries on notable people are permitted, and serves as a strong rebuttal to those who claim these types of lists intrinsically violate BLP. The 2011 AfD, closed as keep, is particularly instructive and recommended reading for any !voters in this discussion.

Finally, comments like delete this utter stupidity, this list is pure and unadulterated evil, and block indefinitely all those responsible are inflammatory, not conducive to productive discussion, and will be discarded by the closing admin anyway, so why are editors bothering to post them? – Tera tix ₵ 11:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. To dicuss this is stupid. Still dont find a good reason to delete. WP should keep this article to counter/debunk Fake news of notable persons (ie. World Presidents) that have died by the virus. Mr.User200 ( talk) 11:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment A few thoughts. The fact we have several red links here shows us that our current 945,000 articles on living people in no way come close to being all the articles on living people our guidelines suggest. In fact it shows that even members of national legislatures, who are default notable and who we will keep articles on even if we are no where near having reliable source on (see Norman Kamosi as a case in point) we do not come close to having a comprehensive coverage of for even current members. Do not get me started on the problem that I was unable to find exactly what years Kamosi served in the national legislature of Zaire, or of how we have very few articles on his colleges, or of how we have articles on every member of congress ever but not ever current member of some other national legislatures. Other things to keep in mind, there are many people who suspect they have this disease in the US, but they have had to go through logs of resistence to even get tested, so even at this stage we are not close to at any level having a clue how many are infected, we are unlikely to ever have a full count. A big question to keep in mind is many of the people who are alive to do will at some future point become notable, will it ever come up that James Collins and Muhammad Khan, who are running against each other for the the New Jersey 1st congressional district seat, who are both current members of the New Jersey state legislature, both tested postive for COVID-19 10 years ago, before either ever ran for public office? I doubt it, so this will always be just a random list of some of the few notable people who were among the first diagnosed, it will never be a comprehensive list, and inclusion will not be like the HIV list limited to people for whom this became public knowledge for reasonable reasons, but just because it became public knowledge in the early stages of the outbreak. I will go on record as being unconvinced we need any of the disease lists and likely to support deletion of most of the lists, unless people come up with highly compelling reasons to keep the lists. There is none here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment The notion we should block "those responsible" for this list is clearly an over reaction. I suspect what will happen is that this issue will be revisted in a month of so, and by then we will admit such a list is unworkable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Johnpacklambert So you acknowledge that this list suffers from recentism? Renerpho ( talk) 13:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
I acknowledge that. I also voted to delete it. I also think Wikipedia overall suffers from both recentism and European and US centricism. The US is where we have the most coverage, followed by Europea, follow by a woeful lack in Asia, Latin America and Africa. The fact that 1989 is the year we have the most articles on people born in that year is also disturbing. Although since it has held at some year in the 1980s since at least 2006 we are getting a little less super recentist, but not much since it has moved from 1982 in 2006 to 1989 today. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment This is heading for being an indiscriminate list. It will be basically "list of people who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before Aril 1, 2020 and for various reasons this was publicly documented in reliable sources by this point." The reasons people will or will not be in this list will not in the long run be at all related to if they had the disease, or if it had a large impact on them. This is not an inevitably life affecting disease like lung cancer. The 1918-1919 Influenza list is one we basically need to scrap or at least limit to deaths because the people on it are not "notable people who had Spanish influenza" they are "government leaders who had influenza, plus a few people who later became super famous and someone who was very into doing their biographical back story decided to put on this list". John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment I invite someone to nominate the Spanish Flu list for deletion on the very same basis as has been argued here for this deletion. If no one else has undertaken it by tomorrow afternoon, I will try to. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment on comment You are free to do so, but as far as this discussion is concerned, such an AfD request is an example of where WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for deletion of this list. The Spanish flu list does not suffer from recentism and it certainly does not touch BLP issues, so the arguments don't really overlap. Renerpho ( talk) 13:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment If I counted right we had 72 for keep and 47 for delete. However it is not a vote, so the arguments on both sides need to be weighed. A few of the keep votes also were more "keep for deaths". I have to admit I am unconvinced that most of the keep votes have dealt with the fact that many people who get the disease are asymptomatic. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
I also have no problem with keeping a "List of notable people who died from COVID-19". Renerpho ( talk) 13:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Johnpacklambert Over reaction ? Why so serious ???? Idolmm ( talk) 13:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. While the disease is still relatively new and there is not much systematic information about some aspects this is an excellent resource for looking at issues such as the very high rate at which politicians are being diagnosed, and in which countries that is happening. There may very well come a point in coming months or years where the number of notable people with the disease is unmanageably large, and it is no longer unusual for a given notable person to have it, and then it would be sensible to restrict it at that point to deaths and the most highly notable living survivors. Therealsleepycat ( talk) 13:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per other comments above. — Jonny Nixon ( talk) 13:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
This is not a suitable topic for a list per WP:IINFO, WP:NOTNEWS, and eventual size of the list; similar lists that include living people are for lifelong conditions. The list of deaths is similar to many in Category:Lists of people by cause of death and can be kept. Peter James ( talk) 13:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Not the 1918-1919 flu pandemic list. Also not List of people who caught yellow fever. Also not all mental illnesses we categorize for are clealry life-long conditions. I would however argue we probably should delete these lists, especially the yellow fever one. By the way Peter James, did you intend to vote delete? It seems that is what you want to happen. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment I wish people would look into the lists before commenting here. We have seperate lists for many different types of cancer, weather we should is a question I do not know has been adequately considered. We also have a list of people who suffered from the 1918-1919 Flu pandemic, but it is no where near comprehensive. We do not have a list of people who suffered from H1N1. On specific cancer lists we have List of breast cancer patients by survival status, List of people with type 1 diabetes (but not for type 2), we have List of sportspeople with diabetes which appears to be limited to people who competed as athletes with the condition. We have List of Ebola patients which includes lots of non-linked individuals. Supposedly all the people on the list are somehow notable in the context of the disease, I am not fully convinced. We have List of people with gout although that may not really be worth having. We have List of kidney stone formers which to me is probably too common to be worth having a list for (that one even has a fictional section for incidents of kidney storm forming in fictional works, I am banging my head). We have List of people with narcolepsy which had 13 entries, but is now down to 11 because I removed one redlink and one person who lacked a citation. We even have List of people with tinnitus, which is a barebones listing of a bunch of people and seems really odd considering how this is a symptom of multiple other considitions. List of people with gout has sources for very few of the people on the list. It has 71 entries but 65 of those have no sourcing. We have a total of 58 lists of people by medical condition. List of polio survivors is a clearly justified list, although even it may need a few better sources. Then we have List of people who caught Yellow Fever which somehow only has 16 entries, but at the same time has only 3 sources. I am tempted to go on a removal spree, but will refrain for a bit, but we either need more sources or removal. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment The comparison to the HIV list is flawed for many reasons. One is that as far as we know HIV is a permanent infection that once you have it, you have it. Treatments exist, but there is no way to reverse the underlying presence, and you are permanently capable of spreading it. With COVID-19 there are much easier ways to spread it, so while you actively have it, avoiding you is much more needed, however it is not a permanent condition, and so there is no justification for covering in that respect. It is also not for many people a condition that is very much going to effect your life in the long run. So it is not like polio where there was a much higher likelihood of death, lots of disruption to those who did not die, and perment consequences that for some people came back to afflict them 70 years after they had the disease initially (see post-polio syndrome). John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment We seem to only have lists of people with breast, ovarian and pancreatic cancer, not lung cancer, skin cancer, prostate cancer, brain cancer, or as far as I can tell other cancers besides these three. Why this is I have no easy way of knowing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment We actually have two lists for breast cancer, one by survivial status and the other a general list. This seems excessive to me, even if one list is justified. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, split if necessary. Yug (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Well considered article. -- cyrfaw ( talk) 16:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment In its current form this article is just a stat sheet with major WP:NOT problems. If a person actually dies of coronavirus it can be noted in their article. If they are unwell for a couple of weeks with flu-like symptoms and then recover, it isn't a big deal. So far no really famous person has died from coronavirus, and no doubt when this happens there will be a great deal of coverage.-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- We do have at least 20 articles on people who died from COVID-19. Weather any of these were "really famous" I do not know, but I am pretty sure most if not all unquestionably meet our notability criteria. However I have not seen anyone argue a problem with the list of deaths. The main concern is tagging people who may not even be particularly sick. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete for the same considerations that led to the creation of WP:BLP. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 19:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per Peter Southwood and Lightburst - TheseusHeLl ( talk) 19:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete: Wikipedia is slowly losing its policy of WP:NOTNEWS as seen in IIN section on the front page and other issues. In particular Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Some of these are notable people, and some are not. Regardless of which they are, this list is not an encyclopedic topic. The fact that they all got the sickness does not mean they should constitute an article in themselves. It trivializes the issue as people think of it purely in terms of particular people who have died from it.— Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 20:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Rather poorly-conceived idea of someone's notion of what journalism is, and evidence of why amateurs should not pretend to be journalists. The notability of a pandemic cannot be distilled into notability for individuals who may have contracted it. ValarianB ( talk) 20:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment I think creating a List of people who died from COVID-19 is more reasonable than the current list. - TheseusHeLl ( talk) 22:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete this is a ridiculous list. Praxidicae ( talk) 23:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep - This is an important dynamic list. Also most of the red links have equivalents on other language Wikipedias. The list is an encyclopedic one that shouldn't be deleted ( MoonlightTulsi) ( talk) 23:32, 17 March 2020
Comment. Several contributors above have suggested that the List of Spanish flu cases is a good precedent for the article currently under discussion. Having looked at the 'Spanish flu' list however, I'd have to suggest that this is open to debate, to say the least. Many of those listed as fatalities of the epidemic lack any source for said assertion entirely, either on the list or in the linked biography. Others are stated in the biography as having died 'during' the epidemic, which is self-evidently not the same thing as dying as a consequence of it, though no doubt some did. One I looked at, William F. Hooley, had an unsourced assertion regarding him having died a victim of the 1918 flu pandemic inserted immediately after a properly-sourced quotation stating that he had died "suddenly and inexplicably" [16]. An edit made in 2016, and unremarked on since, despite the obvious contradiction. The list is thus often unverifiable and some of the entries look like pure guesswork. Obviously, there are no WP:BLP concerns raised, but as an example of how Wikipedia does things it hardly proves the point that people have claimed, and as a source of 'data' it is more or less useless. On the other hand, as evidence to why enthusiasm for lists as sources of 'data' should be treated with a degree of scepticism, it is a prime example. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Note to closing admin: If the result is deletion, I'd like to import this to wikidata and ensure that the relevant items have been updated, so please ping me. Thanks so much, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 07:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per policy. —— SN 54129 11:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I agree with others that a list of notable people who die of COVID-19 would be encyclopaedic; but this list is no more encyclopaedic than e.g. List of people with measles or List of people with appendicitis. Narky Blert ( talk) 12:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep When the nom acknowledges it meets list requirements but claims IAR, that's enough said right there. That being said, support trimming it to individuals with articles. The fact that many have articles on other Wikipedias isn't enough to make them notable since they have different notability guidelines than us. Smartyllama ( talk) 13:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
NOTE TO CLOSER. This page is one of the most egregious WP:BLP violations I've ever seen here, deliberately trumpeting info about people's health (one of the most private things a person has), including a lot of people who are only marginally public figures. We have no easy way of knowing if all of these people would be happy with their health info being trumped on one of the world's most read website, and preserved to posterity to peruse decades for now. But I doubt it.

WP:BLP is a policy not a guideline, and a key core policy. editors are supposed to be not just allowed but required to delete stuff like this on sight. It's not a vote, here, and this is one of those instances where headcount ought to be ignored and the key core policy applied. I recognize that doing this will likely bring a shitstorm down on your head, and I applaud in advance your courage and dedication in doing this. Thanks. Herostratus ( talk) 15:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

As long as content is sourced by publicly available secondary independent reliable sources, it is in accordance to WP:BLP policy. Controversial content about living persons is not barred due to BLP. As a matter of fact BLP policy specifically lays out guidelines on how to deal with such content. Oakshade ( talk) 17:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Indeed. It even goes far to instruct that individuals should not be defined by negative connotations. Which is just what this "list" is doing. —— SN 54129 18:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes User talk:Oakshade, I don't want to ruleslawyer about this; the spirit of BLP is "We are not here to make people sad". My request to the closer stands and will stand. Herostratus ( talk) 18:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't see how this is considered a negative thing to say someone has this virus. Is there some sort of strange social stigma I'm not aware of? People seeing how many famous people they know have it, will encourage them to take it more seriously and be careful. Dream Focus 19:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I would like to know this as well. Everybody gets sick, what's so awful about saying someone has flu-like symptoms? Especially if the virus is going to be so widespread and inconsequential to most people as delete !voters claim? WPancake ( talk) 19:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Both go read WP:BLP. It;s not about whether it's a "socila stigma" (=strawman), it's about whether it's contentious material. Goodbye. —— SN 54129 19:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, I'd say that statements like "I don't see how this is considered a negative thing to say someone has this virus" or "Everybody gets sick, what's so awful about saying someone has flu-like symptoms?" kind of removes you as useful contributors to the discussion? I don't think they're going to impress the closer much, and maybe you'd better stop digging yourself in deeper. Herostratus ( talk) 19:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Herostratus: Please remain civil. —— SN 54129 20:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

What WP:BLP textually states is "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". It has already been explained numerous times why this isn't the case with this article. That said, why is it even contentious at all? WPancake ( talk) 19:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Well it's contentious on its face, since it's being vigoursly contended by a number of editors. As I said: ruleslawyering is fun, but we're not here use our great power -- we're a large, powerful website -- to fuck with private people's lives for no good reason just because we can and feel like it. We're just not, is all. And that is why BLP exists, and why it was written. And the admin corps appreciates this, I am confident. Herostratus ( talk) 19:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

BLP does not at all stipulate the removal of content because "a number of editors" think it's contentious. As stated above, if content is considered contentious by one or any number of editors, BLP is policy to ensure that contentious content is not "unsourced or poorly sourced" but is in fact properly sourced. If any one of these entries is not properly sourced by independent reliable sources then BLP stipulates the removal, but BLP doesn't stipulate the removal solely based on the content being considered contentious even by a majority of editors. I know you don't want to go into ruleslawyer about BLP, but you were constantly citing BLP as reason to delete this list and even ruleslawyering so far as to point out that BLP is policy, which closers already know - claiming closers don't know BLP is policy is rather insulting to them. Oakshade ( talk) 22:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Sure, BLP says that, but that's not all it says. It also right below that it says

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

Emphasis added. Also, "Ask yourself whether... even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." If the person is notable for having the virus and that's an important reason then they have an article here, then OK. Maybe Patient Zero of this outbreak would merit an article. But these other people, no. I hope we're not even going to put in the articles "This person got the corona virus in 2020 but she was OK". Is that something people 20 years from now are going to want to know. If it's not even notable enough to be in their article (let alone being an important source of their notability), why are we calling them out here, for the world and for posterity. BLP also has entire section title "Presumption in favor of privacy".

If you don't care about any of that, then there's Wikipedia:Jerk. Don't be one, to anybody. Leave these people alone for fuck's sake. We're not bullies here. Good grief.

I don't claim closers don't know BLP. I'm confident they do, which is why this article will surely be deleted. Herostratus ( talk) 02:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Since you're going full-throttle ruleslawyer, WP:BLP also states

Biographies of living persons In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

Emphasis added. And nobody has properly explained how people knowing somebody has the virus is negative to them or brings on some social stigma. And in WP's case, everyone here have already been reported to have the virus or, in adherence to BLP as this article does, their name wouldn't be allowed in this list. Reports are, including from well-respected epidimiolgists like Michael Osterholm have stated that an extremely effective tool is a test to know who have already had the virus but didn't know so we know they can go back into the community, especially for health care workers. Oakshade ( talk) 03:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment We have seen all red links removed. I am not sure how long that will hold. It does not in any way solve the problems of undue weight, the disease being non-defining to most sufferers, or any of the other major issues that have been brought up in favor of deletion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Strong keep but with reforms It was this page that I was in fact looking for before it was created (thank you whoever created it), as I was curious which notable people have coronavirus and who died/recovered from it. In my humble opinion, I think that pandemic should be extensively documented all the way down to this, as this is clearly a most significant historical event in the twenty-first century. However, I recognize the privacy issues and I think the article may well be in need of reforms. Yet, I strongly urges against deleting this article in any circumstances; I believe it can be salvaged. Should the article be deleted, I would like to know what are good alternative sources for tracking the data like this? I have feeling there is none right now... Legion ( talk) 18:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Additional thoughts: Should this article be deleted, I would like to suggest that an user create a copy of this artilce on their page and then update it regularly. That I would appreciate very much. Let me know if any of you created this alternative. Thanks Legion ( talk) 18:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete There are dozens of notable people diagnosed only in Spain already. In the next few days, that alone will be +100. Same with Italy and we'll see the same in many other countries. How a list that will have soon +1000 items is useful? And then, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSTATS. That being said, the fact that someone is infected may be notable for other articles, such as their bio, or the article about the pandemia in a given country. -- MarioGom ( talk) 18:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Notable by Wikipedia standards? Enough to have a Wikipedia article that is? That's the only people getting listed. And the length of the article is never a valid reason to delete. Dream Focus 19:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, notable by Wikipedia standards. -- MarioGom ( talk) 19:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
We have 945,000 articles on living people. However this is not even all the articles we could have. There are 615 members of the Spanish cortes general, all of them are notable. The same applies to however people there are in the assemblies of Catalonia, etc. Then there are all the football players. Not just currently playing ones and current members of the Cortes. This easily gets to be huge numbers of people. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Was looking for this article for information and found it, so it served its purpose. Lots of such type of articles exist so this one should too. Nikolaiho^☎️
📖 21:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete I echo many above with indiscriminate, noteverything, and notnews. I could see a list of notable people that died to the virus, but this is not that. Largely I see it as a list that has little to no encyclopedic value. From a data standpoint it does not really tell our reader anything about the virus, the people affected, or what happened as a result. It comes across as a list for the sake of a list, where WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIR comes in. This is all big news now, listing the who's who of who caught it, but is it something that will be notable about that person in even a few months? I cannot think of a situation, assuming the survived it, that it would be the case which is where WP:NOTNEWS is useful for situations like that. PackMecEng ( talk) 21:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete I don't agree with the idea that this is evil, or even pernicious, I just don't think it is useful or worth maintaining. A list of notables who died, possibly, but there is will be a category for that, at the very least. If I am proved wrong by the passage of time and there is to be a list at some future date, it can probably best be created from Wikidata. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC). reply
Comment Also another thought here. If the length of this article is a concern, then I suggest considering breaking it up into articles by their own category. For example, categories as used in this article: Entertainment, Politics, Sports, and Others. Alternatively, I suggest considering breaking them up into articles by countries and dependent territories. For the United States, I suggest further breaking up into articles by states if necessary. All in all, as I said earlier, I advocated keeping the lists but reform it so to be manageable. It have their own purposes. How many readers have come to look for these information? I certainly did. Legion ( talk) 21:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete – this is a completely indiscriminate list, limited only by whether or not the person is notable. It is not a defining characteristic of any of the people on this list, and isn't even worth a category per WP:COPDEF. – bradv 🍁 00:55, 19 March 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 Gerry Weil. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 06:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The Message (Gerry Weil album)

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

Not notable. Not enough sources for an album of substance. Vmavanti ( talk) 01:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 01:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 01:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Gerry Weil, does not seem to be independently notable, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Gerry Weil. If any jazz experts come along they may be able to add information, but this album seems not to have been covered in the media at its release or any time since. As a 1970s jazz album, information is more likely to be found in books. With a Google Books search I found some basic listings of this album's existence, within larger histories of Weil or jazz in general. But commentary about the album itself is lacking. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:00, 16 March 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. WP:SNOW keep was rejected by the nominator, so I undid it and let it run for a full seven days. However, editors clearly believe that coverage of the song constitutes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 06:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The Sheik of Araby

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

Not enough sources for an article of substance Vmavanti ( talk) 00:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 01:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 01:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 01:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep, passes WP:NMUSICOTHER, seems rather notable. A lack of many references alone should not constitute the grounds for deletion. dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 01:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. The song has been recorded on the order of a thousand times, by a broad range of artists; there are hundreds of sources available from the "Find sources" link above. Expand, don't delete. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:NEXIST: The song was incredibly popular in the 1920s and is discussed in lots of sources. For example:
- " The Sheik of Araby" in The Jazz Age: Popular Music in the 1920's by Arnold Shaw, Oxford University Press (1989), pg 111-119
- Jazz on the Road: Don Albert's Musical Life by Christopher Wilkinson, University of California Press (2001)
- The Beatles Encyclopedia: Everything Fab Four by Kenneth Womack, ABC-CLIO (2014)
- " The Sheik of Araby" in America's Songs: The Stories Behind the Songs of Broadway, Hollywood, and Tin Pan Alley by Philip Furia, Routledge (2006)
- Best of the Beatles: The Sacking of Pete Best by Spencer Leigh, McNidder and Grace Limited (2015), pg 34-35

I added these to the article in a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the article can use them as resources. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 01:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep as it totally meets notability and sources are easy to find if you open your eyes to the Google. I actually LOLed at this nomination. This song is a HUGE deal. It was one of the most popular songs of the decade. Did you consider completing WP:BEFORE? I couldn't even guess how many sources would cover this song, but it would be a LOT. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 01:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep: A heavily-covered song, from Duke Ellington, to Django Reinhardt, even to The Beatles. Along with the sources listed above, WP:NSONG criterion 3 applies. AllyD ( talk) 09:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment: Those of us interested in improving the article, you may want to check out this version from a few weeks ago. It has a lot more information, though it did need citations... I have seen in a tertiary source that it charted at #3 by two artists and I will search for secondary sources to back this up before adding it. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 12:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Thing is, a long list of people who covered the song is _not_ what makes for a good article; for songs covered by hundreds of artists, like this one, a shorter list is far more informative. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

No, it is not more informative to include less information about a subject. It is not necessarily even more succinct. It's only quicker and a matter of personal preference. I referred to the earlier list of notable recordings as it relates to WP:NSONG criterion #3. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 17:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I disagree. An un-annotated list of (as it was) a mostly random selection of a few dozen of the thousand or so artists who have covered the song actually provides less information than a well curated list of the artists whose covers of the song have charted or been otherwise notable. The earlier list was not a list of notable recordings, nor was it annotated to indicate why the selections on the list were of interest. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

...Yes... which is why I suggested the editors who are improving this article look to it for research direction. I never said to restore it, disagreed with its removal, or implied that it was exhaustive. Of course unsourced content could and should not be included. As most of the recordings on the old version of the list are by notable artists, one could search for information on, say, Fats Waller's recording, possibly find a review/charting/use in media/other relevant content, and include that information and sourcing in the article... Yes, it is inexhaustive, unsourced, randomly ordered, and perhaps even flawed. Reviewing it is simply a suggestion for the people who have access to resources and inclination to research to improve the article. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 20:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep - plenty of sources available to demonstrate notability. Rlendog ( talk) 15:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep: Though this article may not have many citations, it is still notable and a quick Google search reveals that there are plenty of sources available to be cited. Most of the articles on Wikipedia lack enough citations. It passed WP:GNG and can easily pass WP:SOURCE with a little effort. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^{Talk to me}∕ _{What have I been doing} 20:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - IMHO this AFD shows why doing a thorough WP:BEFORE search is important. While the article was not in good condition there are sources available online to back it up. I fully agree with DiamondRemley39 on using the older material as a direction for looking for additional sources to corroborate what can be substantiated. Michepman ( talk) 17:24, 14 March 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) xinbenlv ^{Talk,
Remember to "ping" me} 05:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The Canada Party

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

Not seeing significant coverage, few mentions in passing, some on social media. Seems to fail WP:NORG/GNG. Possibly the related book is notable, and this could redirect there, but nobody created the article about the book yet. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 00:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 00:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 01:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment found sources: [17] and [18]. Not quite enough for a keep vote for me, but close. b uidh e 03:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
- Not bad, thanks. Maybe a bit more and we can salvage this. Which is always preferable to just blowing stuff up. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
  reply here} 08:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Another WP:POINTy AfD after a PROD was shot down. And the edit of Buidhe proves that the deletion-requests were based on a faulty WP:BEFORE. The Banner talk 21:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:NEXIST. "Maybe a bit more and we can salvage this" means that Piotrus is using PROD and AfD to motivate other editors to find sources for whatever article he happens to run across that day. This is an inappropriate use of the process, because it wastes other editors' time. WP:NEXIST says that editors should consider the possible existence of reliable sources before they nominate for deletion. If you now believe that sources may exist, then NEXIST suggests that you should withdraw the nomination and stop wasting people's time. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 22:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
I don't think this is fair to Piotrus. NEXIST is for when sources do exist, not when they might exist. Burden is on those seeking to keep disputed content to demonstrate consensus for it. b uidh e 01:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Exactly. NEXIST applies to bad nominations when sources are known to exist but are not used (AFDNOTCLEANUP etc.). If the sources 'may' exist, the may also 'not exist', toss a coin. In such a case, per WP:V, the burden is on the article's creator and anyone who wishes to keep it. So far only Buidhe has found new sources, and both of us seem to concur they are a good start, but not enough yet. While editors voting 'keep' seem to ignore this article entirely and just criticize the fact that it was nominated, plus engage in WP:NPA (discussing fellow editors and not the article). This is neither constructive, nor, per WP:NOTAVOTE, even helpful in this AfD at all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 03:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep, I found this: [19], which provides a decent amount of info, and which, combined with the sources found by Buidhe, pushes the article over the GNG mark in my opinion. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 04:14, 20 March 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.

[1] ttps://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2019/10/06/mercy-makes-history-emerges-first-female-to-win-big-brother-naija/

[2] ttps://www.legit.ng/1286543-bbnaija-2019-winner-mercy-eke-set-to-launch-clothing-line.html

[3] ttps://www.legit.ng/1275697-bbnaija-winner-mercy-eke-wins-celebrity-sensation-award.html

[4] ttps://www.happenings.com.ng/latest/2019/10/30/mercy-beats-tacha-at-the-starzz-awards

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Comments

Comments

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook