Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 August	1 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katrine de Candole[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable. Only sources are IMDB and Familysearch. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass SNG even. – Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 22:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Does not seem to be notable. Nika2020 (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FamilySearch is a database that compiles primary sources. These are not the type of sources that one needs to show notability. IMDb is also not a reliable source that in any way shows that what it covers is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gauri Shankar (1958 film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to IMDb (non-WP:RS) since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing, not even the plot. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; as it also fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Pahiy (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nika2020 (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bindiya (1955 film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creatiom in 2016 (and that link was about another film altogether until I corrected it). A WP:BEFORE turned up a one-line plot summary at BFI, and that was it. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles without reliable sources should not last 4 days, let alone 4 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 1 September 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. Tone 09:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Daniel of Saxony[edit]

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

Royal House of Saxony was deposed at end of WWI, being heir to one of a number of supposed heads does not confer notablity. PatGallacher (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argument against deletion: The subject's notability extends beyond his being heir to a deposed monarchy, as described in the article and summarized in the lede.--Dr.bobbs (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Dr.bobbs and there is sufficient coverage to meet GNG. - dwc lr (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Regardless of the deposed status of the Saxon Thrones, the thousand year old House of Wettin is still very much in existence. Thus, Prince Daniel's status as disputed but nevertheless heir to the Head of the House is of encyclopedic relevance. The article is also sourced in the Prince's entrepreneurial matters and the fact that he was one of the candidates in contention to become King of Poland, which even though was Polish monarchist propaganda, is not something you see everyday. All in all the article as a whole is notable enough to remain in Wikipedia. TheRedDomitor (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sourcing is atrocious, and "some crazy people would like him to be King of Poland, but he doesn't believe in monarchy" (which is what one of the sources say) is not the same as "he was a candidate to become King of Poland" (apart from the fact that Poland hasn't been a monarchy for a very long time either). Are there any proper WP:RS for this WP:BLP content? —Kusma (t·c) 15:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have quite clearly stated in my entry above that the entire King of Poland extravaganza is nothing more than Polish monarchist propaganda. But even as preposterous as it may be (as Poland is a Republic) you don't see every second prince from a former royal family being asked to become titular king of a foreign nation, even if it is by a niche group of fanatics. And even without this entire Poland segment, the prince is still an important member of the House of Wettin. But I do agree on one point that the article definitely needs to be sourced more reliably. TheRedDomitor (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Dr.bobbs and TheRedDomitor. This one is Not "royaltycruft". 103.200.134.151 (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above by Dr.bobbs and TheRedDormitor, the subject's notability is only partially based on the disputed monarchial claim. In any case, it is only the OP's opinion that this claim does not confer notability. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above, he is notable apart from his inheritance Alex-h (talk) 08:13, 4 September 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. Tone 09:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Henrie[edit]

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

BLP with no working references. Rathfelder (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way below the level of sourcing that would be needed to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agree with everything said above; however, I realize that his work might have significance to people interested in dogs, and have therefore added it to another deletion sorting list. -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet GNG, BASIC or WP:CREATIVE // Timothy :: talk 20:16, 5 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upul Shantha Sannasgala[edit]

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

Can't find any significant coverage for him. Was embroiled in a few lawsuits of IP infringement [1], [2]. Ran for some parliamentary seat in 2015 but failed. So fails WP:NPOL. - hako9 (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO / WP:NACTOR / WP:NCREATIVE - lacks any reliable sources. YouTube, IMDb and Gossip Lanka are not acceptable or reliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't come close to passing GNG or any SNG. // Timothy :: talk 20:29, 5 September 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. Tone 09:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Badlani[edit]

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

There are no sources available for this unknown actor. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a discussion archived at WP:ICTF here. Replying to this, looks like the person exists [3] [4] [5] and the vid linked in the archive. Social media accounts are not verified however. Haven't seen this guy covered in reliable news media, making be wonder whether he passes WP:NACTOR. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: And make this creation-protected to prevent recreation. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:57, 8 September 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. Tone 09:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tabulae Anatomicae Sex[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found to support it's notability claim in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites and youtube videos. Tagged for notability for 5 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very much a non-notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Vayassu 20[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found to support it's notability claim in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites and youtube videos. Tagged for notability for 10 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; as it also fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Pahiy (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Less Unless (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. Nothing to show notability. Alex-h (talk) 08:15, 4 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nordisk Vision[edit]

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

There does not seem to be much media coverage on this topic. ~~There are only 394 likes on the Facebook page of this NGO.~~ilmaisin (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Struck over link to a Facebook page of a completely different thing. --ilmaisin (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the sources listed in the article are reliable by themselves, but are not about this NGO. --ilmaisin (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have tried, but failed, to find any reliable sources on the topic. Furthermore, the organisation seems to be defunct now. (Note also that the above linked Facebook page appears to about a summer camp hosted by the Party of the Swedes, not this organisation.) ― Hebsen (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I struck over that link. --ilmaisin (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Facebook page likes do not determine notability. BLDM (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but it may give a rough estimate on whether or not it is a big NGO. That neither is same thing as notability, but it is one thing that affects notability. --ilmaisin (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This almost looks like a some kind of hoax article. While the website of the organization used to exist, at least not all of the per-country organizations were real: the Finnish Business Information System finds no organizations—active or defunct—named "Pohjoismainen Visio". --ilmaisin (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it was real, but apparently just a minor fringe organization that never really managed to do anything. It can be found in the Danish corporation database [6], and old material from it can be found on some fringe websites [7][8][9]. Neither make it notable, thought. ― Hebsen (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure if any of the sources actually mention this NGO. The article seems mostly be an essay arguing for their vision based these sources. No evidence that this NGO, if it's even operational anymore, is notable. --Pudeo (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delele unable to fulfill the requirements of WP:NORG Graywalls (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anitha Sampath[edit]

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

This page was created by blocked user:Vettipaiyan. I expanded the article, but now realize that all of the sources are gossips about her marriage and Instagram posts. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable broadcast journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above- subject is not notable Alex-h (talk) 08:17, 4 September 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 redirected to Prakash Sayami. The contribution history is still available; no objection to merging the content to the redirected article, and no objection to the creator trying again in draft space and this time going through the WP:AFC review process rather than unilaterally moving an unsuitable draft to main space. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kathmandu Selfie[edit]

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

Not enough information to satisfy book notability. Google search for Kathamandu Selfie finds advertisements for book, and this article in Wikipedia, but no reviews or third-party mentions, and this article does not provide any mention that can be followed up to find sources.

Already draftified once and moved by author to article space. (Moving to draft space a second time would be move-warring.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had started the article and I shifted it to main space after adding references. @Robert McClenon Please search in Nepali Language with काठमाण्डू सेल्फी.nirmal (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete If it has been moved out of Draft once without effective reassume to correct the problems over sources, then it must be a deleted. No effective reference. scope_creep^Talk 19:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or re-drafify the article still needs work and I'm going to WP:AGF that there are sources in reliable non-English sources. But it needs the effort of editors who know, otherwise it shouldn't be re-created. Archrogue (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 18:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Prakash Sayami. Can't find much at all. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prakash Sayami: Scope creep, Archrogue, Usedtobecool, Robert McClenon what do you think about a redirect? The article is mostly opinion, so I won't vote merge, but I think it's a possible search term so I think a redirect is the best outcome. There is plenty of room in the author article for expansion if sources can be found. // Timothy :: talk 12:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Merge and redirect aren't that different; there are cases where they end up being the same. To me, in this case, a merge means adding "A collection of essays title Kathmandu Selfie was published in 2015^[1]" or therebouts. The target article is exceedingly poor with next to no verification (or RS); so even this one sentence with its independent RS would be a massive improvement, IMO, which is the complete reason my !vote says merge and not redirect. Closers rarely require this hashed out, to make their decision. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Nirmaljoshi - By telling a reviewer what to search for, you are insulting the reviewers by dumping poorly researched pages into article space and expecting the reviewers to finish the job. It is the responsibility of the author to provide an article that provides useful information to the reader without having to search in two languages. Do not insult the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Robert McClenon Please guide me to the location where it is written that only the starting author is the sole responsible for the article? Isnt wiki a collaborative platform? nirmal (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is better to have a search term than not to have one. Redirects are cheap. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://ekantipur.com/32/2015/08/28/20150828182547.html

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. Fenix down (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Milliner[edit]

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

Same chap who was subject of an article deleted in 2017, and there's no new claim of notability other than he has now retired. As a football referee, he's not covered by NFOOTIE, so would need to pass GNG; the only source I can find giving him significant depth of coverage is the Football Queensland website, announcing his retirement - this is an affiliated source, since he appears to have worked for them, and so doesn't add any weight to a claim of notability per GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leave and here is why. I am aware that this article was deleted because he "failed" to be notable other than his retirement. However, there is a chance because the Hyundai A-League coverage is an official website that he had his only appearance in a 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification match between Timor-Leste and Saudi Arabia. If anyone declares that he fails notability, I will add more sources to this article every way I can, as far as I am concerned, to ensure that he has a year of birth, and a football refereeing career for that matter. Ivan Milenin (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ivan Milenin, if you can show me three sources which are all independent, reliable and secondary, and which give him significant coverage, I will gladly withdraw the nomination. Currently the article has no references that tick all those boxes, but if they're out there, by all means add them. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Check out the edit history, and see if some of them are reliable. Ivan Milenin (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Ivan Milenin, unfortunately, none of the ones that give significant coverage are independent of the subject - again, he's worked for the Hyundai league, it's not independent. You need sources that are reliable, independent and secondary, and which give significant coverage. I'm not seeing any that tick all the boxes, sorry. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about from the Sydney Morning Herald (https://amp.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/john-aloisi-says-yellow-card-confusion-has-shades-of-graham-polls-world-cup-blunder-20161119-gst74n.html) and others? Do they work? Ivan Milenin (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Milenin, The SMH doesn't give him substantial coverage - it's just about a single controversial refereeing decision, there's no biographical content whatsoever. We don't host articles about every referee whose decisions have been mentioned in a match report. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per reasoning above. Ymblanter (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC) sock, not Ymblanter GirthSummit _(blether) 15:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Ymblanter, hi - could I ask whether you'd be willing to expand on that? The reasoning above seems to be either that (a) he is given substantial coverage by an affiliated website (Hyundai A-League, who he worked for), that (b) he officiated in a qualification match for the 2018 World Cup (perhaps there's an SNG for match officials I'm not aware of?), or (c) that passing mentions in match reports are an acceptable substitute for substantial coverage. I can't see a route to notability through any of that, but I'd genuinely be happy to reconsider if there's something I haven't thought of. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit I have not left this comment: [10]. There is a massive sock attack going already for three days, it involves AfD, and not all sock edits have been cleaned up.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter, much appreciated - I'll look through the article history and figure it out. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 14:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per comments at last AFD. Giant Snowman 10:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Girth Summit, if you need clarification on notability guidelines on referees, then there it is: [11] In accordance to what they believe in notability guidelines on referees, “players, coaches (managers) and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition (including the Olympics) are notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.” In this case, as I keep on researching and adding for additional sources, such as from FIFA, AFC, and sometimes ESPN, they should prove that he had made a senior international appearance at the FIFA World Cup and the AFC Asian Cup, whether if it’s a regular competition, or a qualifying match, or otherwise. If that is the case, then I will see what I will have to do for the matter. Please kindly take a look at the AFC PDF source and other sources if you still doubt it. Ivan Milenin (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ivan Milenin, the discussion you link to is many years old - it's possible that the guidance has changed over time as consensus changes over what we consider notable, but I'm not seeing any verbiage about referees in the current version of WP:NFOOTIE about refs - unless I'm missing something, they would have to pass regular WP:GNG. I'll be happy to take a look at the article in its latest state in the days before this discussion is closed, but please don't WP:REFBOMB it - it's the quality of the sources that counts. Two or three really good, independent sources with in-depth coverage would change my opinion; 50 trivial articles about a controversial decision in a particular match will not. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Ivan Milenin, I've looked again at the article with its new sourcing. There are a bunch of articles which give him one or two passing mentions, but they're mostly all about the same controversial decision in a single match, and none of them have any biographical detail about him, or discuss him (as opposed to the specific decision) in any depth. There's one which is basically just an announcement that he got his FIFA badge (alongside a couple of other refs), so basically the only sources which go into any depth are sites that he's affiliated with. I'm sorry, but my view remains that he's simply not notable according to our guidelines. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge I feel that refs should be held to the same notability requirements as players. If the SNG include players who represent a professional team then refs who control those games should be given the same courtesy. However I also don't like the SNGs in general and think they run roughshod over GNG in many cases. So on the whole I will stay neutral on whether this is kept or deleted due to notability. However, and this applies to many other referee articles, coverage of even some of the more well known referees consists of just newspaper articles complaining about controversial calls. It can be a nightmare trying to enforce BLP after a game where fans are divided or even in this case where there is a good faith attempt to source the article. In the end it just makes the article very WP:Undue. So for that reason it tips me to the delete side. As a third option I feel a List of A-league referees might be a better chance to mention Milliner and other borderline referees. AIRcorn (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm really struggling to see evidence of WP:GNG here Spiderone 17:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Hack (talk) 03:46, 7 September 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. Tone 09:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ihor Babii[edit]

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

No significant coverage in secondary, independent reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG, doesn't appear to meet WP:NARTIST. In addition to reviewing the citations at this article and the linked articles on other language projects, I searched for Babii's name in English, Ukrainian and Russian, as well as his alias VarrIng, on both Google and Yandex. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Co-founder and chair of the board of the Association of Public Service Announcement Customers and Producers in Ukraine (2009). Founded and editor-in-chief Sanbyuleten Zdorove Suspilstvo (2003). Artist: 2 books (catalogs 2014, 2016). 6 Ukrainian patents (2005–2008). Ostap Khanko (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was considering putting this up for deletion myself. Promotional and packed full on non notable bits and pieces. Mccapra (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is hard to assess as the subject is made out to be a master of many fields. However I don't think the fields are particularly interesting or important: e.g. "chair of the board of the Association of Public Service Announcement Customers and Producers in Ukraine"? Existing sources do not meet WP:NARTIST. The overall tone and intent of the article seems to be promotional.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also looked up the subject in English and Ukrainian, the results, indeed, seem to not include many reliable sources. NatriumGedrogt (talk) 00:10, 2 September 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. Tone 09:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaviyude Osyath[edit]

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

No independent sources exist for this film that are reliable. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFILM Spiderone 17:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Le VPN[edit]

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

Non-notable VPN Provider. Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Generic. scope_creep^Talk 17:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fairly blatant promotional article, where the main editor works at the company. Jumpytoo Talk 01:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet notability criteria. Took a look at some citations I expected to be secondary sources, but they were press releases (e.g. the supposed Business Insider link) or insignificant passing mentions (e.g. the Medium post). Not seeing a depth of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Promotional piece by COI account. Citobun (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as per Citobun. 1292simon (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 12:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Gifford[edit]

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

BLP without any references other than to his own books. Rathfelder (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I have the feeling he’s well known and highly regarded but sadly not discussed at all in any RIS I can find. Mccapra (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here are some things I found: He has several photographs in the collection of the Science & Society Picture Library, which is “The official picture library of the Science Museum Group. Representing the visual collections of the Science Museum, the Science & Industry Museum, the Science & Media Museum, Locomotion and the Railway Museum, as well as select contributors.” [12]...I’m guessing his work is in the Railway Museum collection. Five of his photographs were used on commemorative stamps in 1994: [13] and there was some exhibition mentioned as well, “Art in the Age of Steam Europe, America and the Railway, 1830-1960” which I believe was at the Mid-Continent Railway Museum. Small blurb about the five commemorative stamps: [14] and here:[15] The stamps are in the collection of the Science Museum Group [16] Had an exhibition at the National Railway Museum in 1996 according to this: [17] Had an exhibition at the Kidderminster Railway Museum in 2009: [18] Book review here: [19] Book review on Mechanical Landscapes (blog) [20] Article about him here: [21] also mentions he’s in an exhibition at Newcastle Art Centre. Netherzone (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of sources found by @Netherzone:. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also found five newspaper articles: The Times (London)[22], Journal (Newcastle-upon-Tyne),[23], Evening Chronicle [24], The Tampa Tribune [25], and [26] I think these items plus those above push him over the edge into the keep zone. Netherzone (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be surprised to find he wasnt notable. But biographies of living people have to have external references. Rathfelder (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder, I added a few citations, and cleaned up quite a bit of the flowery language, rumor and speculation, and also improved the way it is organized. It still needs a lot of work to bring it up to encyclopedic standards. My guess is that it was written by someone close to him given the level of detailed anecdotal material. Netherzone (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the sources listed above, I find coverage of Gifford in A Photographer's Guide to Railways by Roger Siviter (1989) which credits Gifford with leading the "New Approach"; there's mention of Gifford on page 5 and page 54. There are also a few sentences in The Oxford Companion to the Photograph (2005) on page 534. Added to the sources already listed, I believe that this demonstrates notability. The article does need to be rewritten to remove the puffery. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the sources above. CreativeNorth (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sloppy nomination. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw in the light of Netherzone's improvements. Rathfelder (talk) 16:49, 1 September 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. Being the 113th-largest of a specific type of company in one country is hardly inherent evidence of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lathrop & Gage[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:GNG or WP:CORP. A WP:BEFORE search delivered only routine press releases and passing mentions, mostly in specialist media. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Survived an AfD in early 2014, but references are still the same - to the company's website. David notMD (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Wikipedia is supposed to use 3rd party sources, not sources from the organizations it covers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing enough significant, independent, reliable coverage online for this to be included. There are a few passing mentions about certain people being appointed or mergers, but nothing that is in depth. --IWI (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 113th largest law firm in the country after its merger in 2019 merger (and name change) which on its face is notable. The article needs updating but AFD is not about the quality of the writing but rather the notability of the business. Its history includes numerous notable attorneys. Americasroof (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Americasroof what sources are you basing your assertion of notability on? This article is not about the post 2019 merger firm, as that would have the post merger title (and proper sources). Also big != notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article should be moved and updated to the current name. Americasroof (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's reasonably large, but that doesn't confer notability on its own. Otherwise, a run-of-the-mill regional law firm. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:04, 31 August 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. Tone 17:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tecno Spark 6 Air[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT. Completely generic android tablet. No discernable special features that make it notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources' coverage of the product seems to only be routine coverage, which is not significant enough to show notability. Agree that it fails WP:PRODUCT - It doesn't seem notable enough to warrant it's own article. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Big WP:PRODUCT fail and mostly routine coverage and basicly just a generic tablet and nothing special there is like a million other tablets with same stuff as this one 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:21, 1 September 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) 19:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen City, California[edit]

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

As it stands, this is nothing more than a dot on a map. Perhaps Durham has more to say, but as it stands I can find nothing but places listing names, and the GNIS entry, and a name at abruptly appears on the topo maps in the 1960s, with nothing around it. Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems there's a 1895 Rand McNally New Atlas of the World with Carmen City on it. It's possible the community was tabulated as part of the 1890 Census but the fate of that document is up in smoke for California places. – The Grid (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I dug into maps and found nothing. – The Grid (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Durham calls it a locality. There's also a Carmen Peak nearby but I can't find anything about either. Glendoremus (talk) 00:10, 2 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riyasha Dahal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Article is majorly cited to YouTube links. She has worked in non notable web series and done a few music videos that were released on YouTube. Google searches do not show any obvious signs of notability. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless someone can come up with Nepali sources it looks a likely delete to me. Mccapra (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 15:50, 1 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Ejefoh[edit]

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

It just says that the subject is an entrepreneur and brand influencer from Nigeria. Sources are mostly blogs and not reliable. - SUBWAY 15:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure promotion. Mccapra (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete spam sourced to black hat SEO sites. Spicy (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stay Articles are not promotion nor spam , i will edit them right away with other source , sorry admins pardon me or move page to draft. Ilovegod112 (talk)

*Stay Winning something like a Top influencer more than 3 places is enough for A4 not to apply Abcdeditorr (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC) strike confirmed sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article have been updated properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovegod112 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — A 22yr old Nigerian “entrepreneur” with a Wikipedia presence? Must look on paper, but oh well he doesn’t seem to be notable enough as WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ANYBIO are not satisfied. Possible COI/Covert UPE also. Celestina007 14:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One does have to be well known globally before he or she is notable, He is well known here in His country Nigeria And that doesn’t go against A4. I can still add more source if you want me too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovegod112 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear as case of `1pm aswe can imagine . DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 2 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voice for Children and Families[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. A tiny Slovenian political party that received 0.23% in a national vote and then folded or merged. No verifiable sources. May even be WP:PROPAGANDA. Grung0r (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Grung0r (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Grung0r (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Grung0r (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I originally created the article. Most sources are reputable national media organisations. The party received significant independent media coverage (as per notability guidelines). The page was created during a time when it was being speculated whether the party may be decisive in the formation of a potential future right-wing coalition government and creating an arch-conservative political current in the country (which - in retrospect - obviously did not happen, but the page might have been of much more general interest if that had been the case). It was also one of the parties often polled in opinion polling for the 2018 Slovenian parliamentary election.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jay, the party received quite some media coverage back then. Among the sources are major Slovenian news outlets, which are reputable sources. --Tone 17:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a country in the world that I would broadly claim that their major news outlets are "reputable", and WP:PUS and WP:DEPRECATED will back me up. This is a still a non-story even if it was reported in the New York Times, but the fact is, it wasn't. It was published by state owned media companies using reporters who are anonymous and unattributed. Grung0r (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It was published by state owned media companies using reporters who are anonymous and unattributed." Even if that would make sources unreliable (are BBC/DW/NPR unreliable sources?) there are plenty of news sources published by privately-owned media in the article, and more could be added if this is actually of concern. In fact, you may find that Slovenian public media organisations often take a more neutral approach in their reporting than private ones. Furthermore, authors are attributed, however, sometimes only initials are given. This is a common practice in multiple Slovenian public and private media organisation and is not unheard of in other countries. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least Delo (newspaper), Dnevnik (Slovenia), Mladina, and RTVSLO are reputable sources. Some other sources are less-reliable, but the first four are enough for GNG. --Tone 12:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In some instances, I used right-wing/party-friendly publications, however, I think I always treated them as basically primary sources (i.e. for citing statements/press releases by proxy). -J Jay Hodec (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mladina was a former employer of Janez Janša, and seemingly where he made his name. They can hardly be considered reliable source for these purposes. It would be like if Boris Johnson had written for the..oh, wait...Grung0r (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, Mladina has been very critical of Janša/SDS for a long time now. In any case, it's coverage is generally held to be reliable. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd close myself but I participated in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 09:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:40, 31 August 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darnitsa (pharmaceutical company)[edit]

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

An article about a Ukranian company that reads like native advertising, and has been heavily edited by a sockpuppet farm of undisclosed paid editors. Most of the references seem to be adapted press releases and I'm not finding anything here or online that looks independent with a byline. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was searching for this subject just now and was surprised to discover this Wikipedia article about them. That said, after thoroughly reading the article I can't say outright deletion would be warranted because the company has been significantly covered by in Ukrainian sources.Maybe the article should be redirected to Glib Zagoriy? IndyaShri (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage looks like press releases and pr in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the awards and press mentions seem to be utterly trivial. There is no claim to have produced or invented any new haramaceticals, just for manufacturing known one lie all ithe othe such firms in the industry. For a mention to. be more than PR there has to be something significant to base it on, and donating 6 respirators is a just the sort of charitable events firms do for the PR. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - not the worst I've seen, but it's very poorly sourced. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC) I note that reference 1 is a dead link, and reference 2 notes its big project was cancelled. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep researched this company it looks very promising, although this article is maybe WP:TOOSOON --Devokewater (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. I have some difficulties with checking which Ukrainian sources are realiable, but TSN.ua lists it among top Ukranian companies, altough with a bit of soubt, saying "We decided to include these two pharmaceutical companies as the leader of Ukrainian pharmaceutical market", Delo.ua also mentions this two companies while reviewing Ukrainian pharmaceutical market, Interfax Ukraine (not to confuse with Russian Interfax) says "Since 1998, it is a leader of Ukrainian pharmaceutical market <...>, 13,76% in 2019". Sometimes sockpuppet farms create articles on notable subjects, but someone should surely clean it up and check facts. Wikisaurus (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the current sourcing is rubbish but reading the uk.wiki article suggests that the company is highly likely to be notable, but has just paid incompetents to create thus article. I suppose if it is genuinely Nita Oe it wint be hard to create a much better article using RIS if this is deleted. Mccapra (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/draftify. The current article looks spammish, but there is potentially reliable content to expand it like [27]. Until such a content is used, well, this is SPAM, and at best it should be drafitied. If someone was paid to create it, they need to keep working, this is not yet ready to be public. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I agree with Piotrus. The company looks notable, but the article needs to be rewritten. Less Unless (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ilham Rahimov[edit]

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

Extremely thinly sourced promotional BLP. I don't think he meets WP:NPROF, but I am in no real position to evaluate the sources. There appear to be some sources in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, but as I do not speak the language I cannot evaluate their quality. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His awards and positions would seem to be sufficient to prove notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am having a hard time figuring out what's what here as the references are mostly dead links, but there also seems to be a different person with the same name[28], who is some sort of an oil magnate in Russia and a former classmate of Putin. Google searching can probably easily confuse them. Nsk92 (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of Prof or GNG. 02:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC). Xxanthippe.
Keep for now. Most sources appear to be in languages I can't read, but sources like this [29] are supportive of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:12, 10 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheed Shodha Sansthan[edit]

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

The organization doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NGO. Out of three references, one is organization's own website, second one is a small brief about organization in local coverage of a national daily (probably more like a press release), third one is about the org 's awards detail and not about the org itself. I could only find one more reference to org on news websites which just mentions it in the passing. It seems the org's founder is more notable than the org itself. Also to note is that the creator of this page had in 2011 created page for this org under its full name which got deleted under CSD. Roller26 (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The organization is active for about 22 years now. Some very prominent people were honored with Award presented by this organization, some of them even later went on win Padma Awards from the government of India. This is an unique organization in its own rights, as it was few of first organizations completely dedicated to the non-Gandhian freedom fighters. The institute is constantly working towards collection, publication and distribution of information about Indian freedom struggle. utpalpandey (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2020 (IST)

utpalpandey, I have gone through all the other links you have added since the AfD tag. All of them either mention the Organization in passing-by, just contain a quote from an organization representative or don't mention the organization at all. (They talk about the achievements of a person while mentioning that they have also won Maati Ratan award). These do not represent significant and independent coverage. For a stand alone article the organization has to comply either with WP:GNG or WP:NGO, which it doesn't. I am sure the purpose and actions of the NGO are extremely noble, but WP:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause, there many other appropriate forums to do so. If the award given by the organization, Maati Ratan is notable that doesn't mean that the organization it self is notable due to WP:INHERITORG. If you think that the award Maati Ratan satisfies the criteria of WP:GNG, you can have a stand-alone page for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roller26 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause and WP:INHERITORG was helpful. It seems this organization doesn't fulfill the standards and clearly the award presented by it is more recognizable than the org itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utpalpandey (talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 18:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We still got Hindustan Socialist Republican Association where anything important can be covered. NavjotSR (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Combining Cyrillic Hundred Thousands[edit]

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

Stub with no perspective of growth unnecessarily duplicating information provided in Cyrillic numerals. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Could also redirect to Cyrillic numerals, which is what looks like was done with Combining Cyrillic Millions. Carter (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is absolutely no encyclopedic value to this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 7 September 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) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 04:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Record of Youth[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and the subject is WP:TOOSOON ~ Amkgp 💬 12:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would disagree that this is a case of TOOSOON, as the drama is verifiable and the subject of significant coverage in numerous reliable Korean sources, such as: Yonhap, Hankyung, Seoul Economic, and TenAsia, to name a few, which should be enough to pass GNG. While I understand that notability is not inherited, the fact that TV series features so many notable actors and actresses points to the likelihood for additional qualifying coverage to emerge soon -- Dps04 (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

12:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As above. - Seokgjin (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No point in deleting this excellent start today if the show will premiere in a matter of hours and will almost certainly be the subject of (additional) SIGCOV shortly thereafter, per the points above. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul A. Hodgson[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, only claim to fame was being roommate and friend of Dwight Eisenhower but WP:NOTINHERITED applies Mztourist (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IMPACT, his published insights and coverage of Dwight D. Eisenhower are evidence enough of this being a notable individual. However, a review of online sources show a suprising number of entries about him and that would be enough to surpass WP:GNG as well. They need to be added to the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples please. Mztourist (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Examples: Eisnehower Library letters; National Archives letters; American Heritage My Room Mate… Is Dwight Eisenhower…; Baseball continuum West Point Baseball ; Beetle: The Life of General Walter Bedell Smith book source; Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life Book; Daily Independent Journal June 15, 1955; Just some examples. You could always click the "news" link above and steps recommended in WP:BEFORE as well. It wasn't hard to find a bundle.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't regard any of those as giving substantive "insights and coverage " that reach the level of WP:IMPACT. Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The first link alone is the metadata on a stack of some 200 pages of research. We can disagree, but ultimately it is neither your decision nor mine.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete independent coverage is lacking (I checked the linked sources, which are mostly passing mentions), notability is not inherited from a minor association with Eisenhower. (t · c) buidhe 09:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are a passing mention in the West Point almanac, one article that mentions him rooming with Ike, and his own papers. Doesn't meet either SOLDIER or the GNG. Non-notable colonel. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I realise that he was only a colonel, but enough material to already create a reasonable article, and there are multiple additional minor claims to fame, such as his friendship with Eisenhower, his membership of the famous class of 1915, which has its own article, and of the 1914 championship football team, which is also famous enough to have its own article. Note the navbox at the bottom! That national championship football team includes Omar Bradley (five stars), James Van Fleet (four stars), William Hoge (four stars) and Vernon Pritchard (two stars). Others are notable as gridiron players, including Alex Weyand (an Olympian), Robert Neyland and Louis A. Merrilat. Notability is not inherited from colleagues, but being surrounded by famous people guarantees lots of mentions - enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not covered by independent reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--I've had some disagreement above with an editor about the significance of the sources, but this is the first comment to question the independence and reliability of them. The United States National Archives and several book references are neither independent nor reliable source?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Short of sourcing necessary for a GNG pass. The Eisenhower Library link being 404 doesn't help. Carrite (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Dead links are editing issues, not deletion issues. --Paul McDonald (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the sources previously noted, a quick search of Newspapers.com turned up obit part 1/obit part 2, this,this, and this. The totality shows a WP:GNG pass with significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all of those obits in minor newspapers include in the headline "Ike's roommate" or "Ike's classmate", showing that he was not notable himself, merely for his association with Eisenhower. Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true. This is a feature story about Hodgson in a major metropolitan daily that dates from a time before Eisenhower was even famous. This is from The San Francisco Examiner, hardly a "minor newspaper". And this is an in-depth, two-page obituary that goes into significant depth about Hodgson's life and accomplishments. Cbl62 (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am convinced by Paulmcdonald's and Cbl62's sources that the subject meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:46, 10 September 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) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 04:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemachandran (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Irrelevant actor who has played roles in several small budget films. Couldn't find a single source. The creator of the page is blocked. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The last two links in references are dead links - the earlier ones all work. There is no year of birth for this Actor, who, at the moment, lacks notability. A minor actor as mentioned above. Whiteguru (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- sources added for notability of films. Coverage on the two top Indian papers here - [30] and [31] Neutral Fan (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I, the creator of the discussion, feel that the article is notable now and should not be deleted. Speedy keep. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article cannot be speedy closed because there is a delete vote apart from your nomination Atlantic306 (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he has had three leading roles in notable feature films as confirmed in multiple reliable sources which have been added to the article since nomination so he passes WP:NACTOR and deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film's budget does not matter. There are atleast three notable films where he played a lead role. That would make him qualify WP:NACTOR.--Ab207 (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per Donaldd23's comment; there seems to be agreement that Doomsdayer520 can improve the article to an acceptable level. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speak of the Devil Tour[edit]

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

Unsourced concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has tags on it needing both additional citations for verification since December 2015 and insufficient inline citations from 4 years ago as of this month. Pahiy (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Found the following sources [[32]], [[33]], and [[34]]. Just because article doesn't have sources listed does not mean they don't exist. Did you do a WP:BEFORE? Donaldd23 (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:NOTCLEANUP. The tags on the article are reasons to improve it if sources exist, and they do exist as found by the above voter. Remember the WP:BEFORE process as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (previous voter) - I am willing to clean up this article and add the sources found by the other voter above, if/when it survives this process. Don't see the need for all these re-listings, when we seem to have a basic consensus calling for improvement rather than deletion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree. Two "keep" votes, no dissenting votes and several citations pointed out. Why has this been relisted twice? Donaldd23 (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard W. Cook[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG non-notable life Mztourist (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. has a biography [35], so sufficient material to create an article. Passes WP:GNG due to coverage in RS. His experience at the AEC is mentioned in Hewlett and Holl. The AEC and Manhattan Project makes him interesting to me, and his NASA career also turns up hits. Found a picture of him here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Response since when did autobios establish notability? WP:RSSELF Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  I did not say that. I said that it established sufficient material to create an article. Notability is established by the other references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nomination; not notable; source listed (the one link that works) indicates no notability aside from inclusion on a list and brief description. —Notorious4life (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question. How significant is getting the Legion of Merit? I notice it's sourced to a (possibly) reliable book. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Seventh in order of precedence, so not that special. Mztourist (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  You can read his citation here, but it is very vague owing to the secrecy surrounding the Manhattan Project. General Groves submitted a list of personnel for decorations in 1945. The award was not common during World War II, but today due to award inflation most general officers can expect to get one on completion of an assignment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:33, 31 August 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. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnostics of Karma[edit]

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

Sources are affiliated. Significance is not shown. --Алёна Пескова (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many independent and authoritative sources in the article Лазарев, Сергей Николаевич (парапсихолог) - they can easily be moved to the article. Unambiguously leave the article. The books have been translated into more than 1.5 dozen languages of the world, published in multi-million copies. Uchastnik1 (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Russian sources are certainly enough for, e.g., WP:BOOKCRIT. (Being widely translated or published in big runs doesn't automatically confer notability to a book but it almost always goes hand in hand with a very easy pass of BOOKCRIT.) It looks like the article has some POV problems based on the Russian version flagging it as pseudoscience, but that's irrelevant to a deletion debate. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 17:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the nomination. @Алёна Пескова: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 16:28, 14 August 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 August 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources - while not in English - are sufficient to pass notability for books, WP:BOOKCRIT as mentioned above. There is also a critical page in English. -- Whiteguru (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Which sources, exactly, directly cover the book itself vs. the author's oeuvre? Note that the Russian Wikipedia cited above doesn't have a dedicated article for the book—only its author's biography article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Czar - I answer your question: the following books describe exactly the books "Diagnostics of Karma":

- Фесенкова Л. В. (2008). "Проблема общей теории здоровья: традиционные и нетрадиционные концепции" (PDF). Здоровье как проблема естественных и биомедицинских наук (PDF). Философия науки, вып. 13 (500 экз ed.). М.: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences. pp. 221–243. ISBN 978-5-9540-0102-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help);

- Andrey Kuraev (1997). "«Диагностика кармы» и диагностика совести (гл. 23 р. IV «Буддизм и христианство» т. 1 «Религия без Бога»)". Сатанизм для интеллигенции: (О Рерихах и Православии): в 2 т. (PDF). Vol. 1: Религия без Бога, т. 2: Христианство без оккультизма. М.: Московское Подворье Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius : Отчий дом. ISBN 5-7676-0082-1.;

- Гарицын А. С., Медведев Т., Калашникова Т. (1999). "«Диагностика кармы», или «Поцелуй Иуды»". «Четыре ответа на приглашение в ад» (10000 экз ed.). СПб.: Диоптра. ISBN 5853250280. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link);

I also think that in the Russian Wikipedia, an article about books "Diagnostics of Karma" can be created in the near future, since there is every reason for this according to the criteria of significance. --Uchastnik1 (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my machine translations but doesn't the first source not go into depth about Диагностика кармы? It looks like it's more about Lazarev's theories than this book itself. There seems to be plenty more sources on the author. In general, it's better to cover an author's works within their biography and to only split out summary style when warranted by an overabundance of secondary sources. Would it make sense here to repurpose this article into one about the author? czar 08:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source describes Lazarev's theories, set out precisely in the books "Diagnostics of Karma", where the text is accompanied by links to these particular books, and at the end of the text of the source there are books "Diagnostics of Karma". I also think that both Lazarev himself and the books "Diagnostics of Karma" correspond to independent criteria of significance. You will also forgive my machine translation. --Uchastnik1 (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Mark Zakharov viewed the book "Diagnostics of Karma" in his program on nationwide television (1994): Interview with S. N. Lazarev in M. Zakharov's program "Serpentine" (6.10.1994) on YouTube --Uchastnik1 (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Translation (for colleagues who do not speak Russian) from an interview with Mark Zakharov: "Sergey Nikolaevich Lazarev is the author of the wonderful book "Diagnostics of Karma". Here, I highly recommend reading it. The book was published in a normal, rather modest, circulation, but then replicated in a pirated manner, which speaks of its indisputable merits and the great interest it arouses. Everything else, in addition to all the other merits of the book, there is one more quality that I have not met before when you come across the word "karma" - that there is some kind of inextricable connection with our Christian worldview, with Orthodox values, and very accurately, so to speak, interpreted and, so to speak, explained this is the unity of some discoveries of Eastern philosophy and our native Orthodoxy. Sergey Nikolaevich, before we turned on the camera, he demonstrated some of his amazing ability to read information, he can do it, he understands it, and he said something about me that, of course, amazed me (...)". --Uchastnik1 (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that as of the time of the author's program "Serpentine" on October 6, 1994, Mark Zakharov was also (at the same time) a member (one of) the Commission on State Prize of the Russian Federation in the field of literature and art under the President of the Russian Federation, appointed from January 22 1992 (and until June 23, 2004) in accordance with the section "Composition of the Commission on State Prize of the Russian Federation in the field of literature and art under the President of the Russian Federation" "Regulations on State Prizes of the Russian Federation in the field of literature and art", approved by the Order of the President of the Russian Federation No. 26-рп of January 22, 1992 "On State Prizes of the Russian Federation in the field of literature and art", where, in accordance with the Regulations, the functions of the Commission (as well as its members) included consideration of works of literature and art submitted for competition State Prize, and the adoption of appropriate decisions on them by (personal) voting. --Uchastnik1 (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I am always wary of giving a platform to pseudoscience, but this appears to be barely notable, with enough sources to place it in context. Archrogue (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BOOKCRIT. Wm335td (talk) 20:47, 10 September 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) 19:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe H. Anderson Sr. Bridge[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable bridge. The one given reference, which isn't cited inline, is one line in a table produced by the highway department that operates the bridge, so it's a primary source. This just states that there's a boat ramp next to the bridge, without giving any real information about the bridge. It's mentioned, without any accompanying coverage, as a place of note in it's county in [36], but no significant coverage there. At this point, we're just getting into bridgecruft. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Even the annual average daily traffic of 6,100 vehicles gives some insight. I would be more interested on the naming of the bridge as FDOT usually names their bridges based on physical features unless Florida Legislature sets forth a bridge designation. Looking at Google Maps, confirms that. – The Grid (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If somebody can come up with some good sources, I would change my mind, but given what we have now, it's just a directory listing in a WP:PRIMARY source, so fails WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkaoao[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. A WP:BLP article with no effective sourcing. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a newspaper article reference on the Chinese Wikipedia: [37]. A Google News search of the Chinese name seems to have a fair number of mentions, but I can't really tell if they are WP:RS or self-published. Jumpytoo Talk 04:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of primary references, profile page, discussion on scores/games, a lot of puff, interviews, PR and so on but I can't see much in the way on quality secondary sources. He should be notable as he has an enormous fan base. scope_creep^Talk 14:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify- potentially notable topic, but the article in its current state has many issues. 1292simon (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because this is the english encyclopedia and we are not able to determine the notability; based on reading the editors who have commented before me on this AfD, the nominator, and myself. Until we get an editor with experience in this area who can help determine the notability for the English encyclopedia we should soft delete or WP:ATD draft. Wm335td (talk) 20:32, 10 September 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. Mere existence is not an indicator of notability. Notability relies on the existence of reliable, in-depth sources, none of which have been brought up here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furys Ferry Bridge[edit]

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

Non-notable bridge. This article is about a ferry that predated the bridge, [38], but the bridge gets a whopping three sentences of coverage. The national bridge inventory form cited is a primary source. Two sentences in this. This just doesn't seem like a notable bridge. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G.B. "Dip" Lamkin Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herschel Lovett Bridge, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. Edward Tankersley Memorial Bridge, all of articles created by the same editor. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Another ordinary bridge. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: As the maker of the page, I would like to see it kept. I still don't really understand the notability guidelines. The bridge exists, so that should be notability enough for an article to exist. However, I know there is a standard against this, too. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 07:15, 7 September 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 FAW Jiefang. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CA141/CA1091[edit]

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

Notability not established for military product, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Search results are all mirrors. Reywas92^Talk 02:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the FAW Jiefang article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with FAW Jiefang: add a mention of this truck to that article, no indication of independent notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with FAW Jiefang per above. // Timothy :: talk 01:11, 7 September 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 San Rafael, California. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Las Gallinas, California[edit]

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

Once part of a Mexican land grant and a ranch. No evidence it was a separate community. Now seems to be a residential neighborhood of San Rafael. Glendoremus (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Rafael, California: WP:GEOLAND: "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG." Does not meet WP:GNG // Timothy :: talk 13:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Rafael. Appears to be a neighborhood rather than unincorporated community. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:19, 31 August 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) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Grooving & Grinding Association[edit]

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

Niche trade association that fails WP:NORG. ~~If only this were a grooving and grinding association ……~~ AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable organization in the building trade with several decent independent references. We can do without flippant deletion suggestions.Rathfelder (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination was not flippant, although perhaps the bit of attempted humor—which I have now struck—was ill-considered. The majority of references in the article are either dead or primary, and I could not find others. The references that appear reliable and do mention this organization are passing mentions in trade journals. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just found some additional hits looking for "International Grooving and Grinding Association" (e.g., [39]) but they appear to be contributed by the organization itself, which does not help with notability. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are 4 independent references. That seems enough for an organisation of this sort. Rathfelder (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seeing dozens of mentions of this half-century old trade organization in a Newspapers.com search. Carrite (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ashvale[edit]

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

Article fails WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:PROMO Angryskies (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG as there is impressive press coverage such as this
And ever since it opened its doors in 1985, the Ashvale has cast its net wide in attracting some very big fish from showbusiness, politics and sport to sample its suppers. The list – which ranges from Mel Gibson and Gregor Fisher to Sir Elton John and Lewis Capaldi and Annie Lennox to Denis Law – testifies how this Granite City locale has become one of the most famous restaurants in the whole of the north-east.

Andrew🐉(talk) 12:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems that this place is pretty well-known locally which is backed by such sources as Evening Express (Aberdeene Newspaper) 1, 2 as well as a source mentioned above [40]. However this can't be considered a significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as required by WP:NCORP especially taking into account the stronger emphasis on the quality of the sources required by the guidelines applied to organizations.Less Unless (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The Press and Journal article looks pretty decent, and if there's more than what's linked already I'd happily consider changing my !vote. When I search myself, I haven't found anything else yet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving from a Weak Keep to plain Keep as it transpires that there is ample out there to establish notability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles published in multiple sources that cover the Ashvale- the Aberdeen restaurant itself appears to be known better than the chain. At the point of nomination there were no references included in the article- a lot of work has been done to add material. While I feel notability has now been established as judged against WP:COMPANY, there is more material included that appears promotional. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the original shop in Aberdeen has certainly had much coverage over the years, not least for the awards it has won. However, I would agree with comments that there is material which is tending towards the promotional rather than being encyclopedic content and so the article could probably do with some editing. Dunarc (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. An analysis of the references within the article show the following:
- The Herald Scotland article from 1994 references one of the restaurants in the chain as being the best takeaway. It provides no information whatsoever on the company as a whole, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- This from intrafish.com relies entirely on information provided by the company and their MD, John Low jr. This fails WP:ORGIND as it is not "Independent Content" and the article is classic churnalism.
- The Caterer reference just parrots information provided by one of the restaurants and/or the company such as saying *we* have a much lower profit margin, not Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.
- The El Pais reference is an article on "24 hours in Aberdeen" where the author mentions one of the restaurants, recounts its closing time, observes the fact it has a green carpet and that they serve battered and fried food and mentions a portion called Whale where if you eat one you get another free. The article fails to provide in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- The Lonely Planet reference is a standard entry for one of the restaurants, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.
- The Evening Express reference isn't about the company or one of the restaurants but is mentioned in passing as one of their directors received an honour for his services to the seafood industry and charity. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- The Guardian reference doesn't even mention the company nor any of their restaurants, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- The mentions in the book Untrodden Grapes are similar to a review of the author's experience eating in the restaurant. There is no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- The Press and Journal reference is churnalism, based entirely on an interview with a company director and the tone of the article is promotional. It is not "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from the Herald Scotland is a mention-in-passing to the same story referred to in the previous article of how Barry Robson signed for Aberdeen over a fish supper in one of the restaurants. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- Finally, this reference from The Scotsman is a mention-in-passing where it is announced that a dinner will be held later that night in one of the restaurants. There is no attributed journalist (just By The Newsroom) and reads like PR. In any case, there is no in-depth information provided on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH

Not a single reference meets the criteria and I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept any of that. To start with, an interview is not churnalism and I should know because I created the article about it. And someone nominated that for deletion too. And most of the complaints are a lack of focus on the overall company rather than the flagship restaurant. That's just the nature of the topic; the natural focus of the topic is on the founding, flagship establishment. The financials of the company are touched on but, because it is privately held, rather than public, there's not much investment interest. The essential point is that the place has been noticed and the scope of our coverage must naturally follow the sources rather than some editor's pre-conceived ideas. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP and the criteria for acceptable references to establish notability are clear and strict - they have to be strict to stem the flow of organizations treating Wikipedia like the Yellow Pages or as a promotional website. The article is about a company, not about an individual restaurant, so we need in-depth details on the company. You say that its just the nature of the topic - I disagree and there's certainly no exceptions in the guidelines that I can see. If the company was notable, somebody somewhere would have written about it and not just about a single restaurant. An interview may not be churnalism, I agree, but both of the ones I referred to are classic examples of churnalism and were created and only serve to promote the restaurant/company. Finally, the "essential point" is not that the place has been noticed but whether it meets our criteria for notability. You are correct that we must be careful to avoid editors' pre-conceived ideas about what they believe is a "good" topic - that is why we have very good and clearly written guidelines. If you want to argue about any of the references meeting our guidelines, that discussion can be held here. On the other hand if you want to argue that this topic should be an exception, that probably belongs at the NCORP talk page. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is only about a company inasmuch that it mentions that, in addition to the main restaurant, it has expanded to include other branches, then names the locations. Aside from that it is effectively entirely about the original and main restaurant. Accurately reflecting the de facto focus would take a couple of minor word changes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A notability guideline is not policy. Guidelines are loose rather than rigid and so a narrow reading is not appropriate per WP:PETTIFOG. The nutshell for that guideline just restates the WP:GNG. That general guideline is satisfied and so we're good. If the main restaurant is the focus of the coverage then this is not surprising. I noticed a branch of The Ivy in Victoria recently and it seems that's another case where a famous restaurant starts spawning other branches but our article doesn't say much about them. This is to be expected and is not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, the example of The Ivy occurred to me last night and I almost mentioned it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, guidelines *can* be loose in some ways but when they're not, they're not. As you say, the "nutshell" for NCORP is a restating of GNG with clarification on how to apply the guidelines to GNG, so if one isn't satisfied then neither can the other. GNG is also a guideline but it doesn't take precedence over NCORP. As I said, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and you've not argued that my analysis is incorrect or that I've misinterpreted any of NCORP's guidelines. The only people "wikilawyering" at this AfD are the people trying to pick and choose which parts of which guidelines they'd like to implement for this topic while ignoring the parts they don't want/like. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If by "people" you are including me: you made several points, I responded to one. Entirely legitimate to address issues one by one to narrow the points of contention. If it's alright by you, I'll continue to contemplate the other aspects for now before expressing a view; don't leap to conclusions in that regard. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:20, 10 September 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 Captain America. Sandstein 11:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of incarnations of Captain America[edit]

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

This is a weird pseudo-disambiguation page/minor character list that doesn't really need to exist. Captain America (disambiguation) exists for any characters actually predominantly associated with the name. Those that don't have articles are likely not important enough to need coverage in the first place. TTN (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move page to Captain America and Move Captain America to Captain America (Steve Rogers) - Proper disambiguation per WP:NCC. Valid hub page for characters called Captain America, and the few ones that don't have articles need to be mentioned somewhere. By the way, it feels like you guys are indiscriminately nominating every "Alternative versions" article you come across. Dark knight 2149 06:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Captain America, if this content is not already there, then delete (unlikely search term). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Captain America page is specifically about Steve Rogers. This (admittedly poorly named) article is a hubpage for the Captain America moniker in general and most of the characters have articles of their own. Unless there is enough room at Captain America to include everything in a Successors section, I don't see how merging is a good idea. Dark knight 2149 10:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Captain America. These are fictional characters, and so there is no reason to treat them as if they are biographical entries. This can easily be covered in a much more succinct way on the Captian America page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Captain America: per Johnpacklambert above // Timothy :: talk 04:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as mostly plot information that could still be preserved. Archrogue (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erskine Oglesby[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG the main source is self-published through Lulu.com, so not reliable. The other sources in the article are passing mentions or don't mention Oglesby at all. On a before search, I found a one paragraph obit and Newspapers.com has a local ad for his performing, and seemingly nothing else besides passing mentions. this suggests there may be more, but the only one of those sources I found is not SIGCOV, as mentioned above. Notability is not conferred just by having played with some famous people, there needs to be coverage to back it up, coverage that I just don't see. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I searched Google, ProQuest and JSTOR but couldn't find acceptable sources. Subject does not meet our notability standards. Z1720 (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't have access to the full article online, but I found a reference to an obituary published in Living Blues: Brett, Bonner (September 2004). "Erskine Oglesby". Living Blues. 35 (5): 95. ISSN 0024-5232. That, combined with [41] this from WOMEX, and some local coverage in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, might be enough for GNG. But without access to a copy of that issue of the magazine, I can't say for sure how in-depth the coverage is. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the coverage in books: Blues Unlimited, Directions in Sound (Played with Ike and Tina Turner, and living Blues. Notability of musicians is based on the work. I also appreciate the rationale of AleatoryPonderings. Wm335td (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe El[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG. Furthermore subject of the article doesn’t satisfy any criterion from SINGER Celestina007 20:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources in article do not establish notability and a search by any of the names in the article + "Afrobeats" did not show anything that would help meet WP:GNG, WP:NPEOPLE (or combined under WP:BASIC) or WP:NARTIST. // Timothy :: talk 05:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

22:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Keep I see plenty of sources for his father's death, [42]. Perhaps the article could be trimmed. I gave him a few links, such as The Headies Award for Best Collaboration. Seems clearly notable at a glance, - admitting I have no time for a closer look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Hi Gerda Arendt, I'd be happy to take another look. If (time permitting) you think of any search terms or Nigerian RS other than what you've provided that may produce results, let me know. I've actually been listening to some of his music. Greetings from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 07:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for asking, and sorry I had no time so far. I have no experience in the field, - what I do is search for his name and the thing missing a reference, - sometimes lucky, sometimes not. Try it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article, trimmed the prose and dropped some dubious sources. I see enough coverage (Nigerian Guardian) and awards to think he is notable enough, already. I'd say that our criteria SINGER are possibly too hard for a Nigerian singer, and we could ignore that rule. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 14:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject passes Anybio and SINGER criteria #2 and #8

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Choizer[edit]

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

A phrase without any sources, and rather obscure. Perhaps with the term Meiniach can be incorporated into another article about Chabad, but both articles are too niche and lack sources to be notable enough for their own page Playlet (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and nom. Yoninah (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:@Playlet and @Yoninah:The article is very poorly written but the subject is a notable one and not limited to chabad. The "Choizer" has it's roots going back to Europe in the days before "tape recorders". The Choizer would repeat the Rabbi's lecture giving students who missed part of the Rabbi's lecture a 2nd chance. Currently, the "Choizer" is common in many Hassidic courts where the Rebbe delivers his sermon at a Tisch on Shabbat when it is forbidden according to halakah to record it. - So although the article needs a lot of work it is worth keeping--Steamboat2020 (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 14:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced dictionary definition. I could not find additional reliable sources to establish GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability for a stand alone article. There should be an article for Hanochos and this function and history could be incorporated into it along with Meiniach. // Timothy :: talk 14:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT not a notable term. Wm335td (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meiniach[edit]

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

A phrase without any sources, and rather obscure. Perhaps with the term Choizer can be incorporated into another article about Chabad, but both articles are too niche and lack sources to be notable enough for their own page (I have also nominated Choizer for deletion) Playlet (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and nom. I don't think it's even necessary to print a list of these terms; they could be translated wherever they appear in the Chabad articles. Yoninah (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This page has been on Wikipedia unchallenged for 13 years and has an equivalent page in Italian. Like many early pages on Wikipedia, sources are sorely lacking - that should be corrected but isn't grounds to delete the page. I am not familiar with this term but according to the Chabad wiki page there are roughly 90,000 Chabad Hassidim, so a respected position in their movement should be considered notable. @Yoninah: this isn't just a term it's the title of position - similar to Shaliach (Chabad).--Steamboat2020 (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Steamboat2020: But this isn't the Chabadapedia. We have a wiktionary for those who think it's important to define every religious term out there. Shaliach, meanwhile, is referred to all over world media, so it's easy to see why that meets WP:GNG. If you could show us why this subject is notable by expanding the page with RS, it would help this AFD. Yoninah (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Yoninah: I already said that I am not familiar with this term but I am still reluctant to delete a 13 year old established page about a leadership position associated with a 90,000 person movement due to a lack of sources.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Steamboat2020: I hear you, but you shouldn't put too much stock in pages that were created 13 years ago and still look like this. Back in the early days, editors posted anything, including copyvios, just to put up pages. I fought through two AFDs and lost to someone who insisted on posting a Haredi journalist whose notability cannot be established; his response was, "Leave it. No one else cares about this." Thankfully we have editors who are now prowling the 'pedia to dig out articles that never satisfied our criteria. Yoninah (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Steamboat2020: As I said above, I do not object to the information being on Wikipedia on another page, but it lacks sources and WP:GNG to have its own page. A bad article is still a bad article even after 13 years.Playlet (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah (& @Playlet):I hear you as well, the thing is that when a page is challenged right away, it gives the creator of the page a chance to defend and improve it. When somebody challenges it 13 years later, odds are the person who created it is no longer active on Wikipedia. In general, I get the feeling that you don't have any personal knowledge on this matter and neither do I. Our knowledge on the subject is limited to internet search results, which when it comes to Orthodox Jewish topics isn't necessarily a valid indicator on notability. Especially, since the position was essentially abolished in 1994 when the last Lubavicher Rebbe died. Let's assume that this was a notable position in Chabbad- Lubavich since it was founded in 1775. There may have have been hundreds of Meiniachs between 1775 and 1994. So I am reluctant to endorse deleting something possibly very historical just because I don't know enough about it.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Steamboat2020: I am aware of Chabad and of these positions. Many of the members of the sect would not be aware of these positions. The fact that the author of the article is no longer an active editor is hardly a reason to keep the article for all eternity. If it does not meet notability guidelines the time frame of deletion is irrelevant.Playlet (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Playlet: If you have first hand knowledge that many members of Chabad aren’t even aware of this position then I withdraw my vote to keep this page--Steamboat2020 (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 14:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet notability for a stand alone article. There should be an article for Hanochos and this function and history could be incorporated into it along with Choizer // Timothy :: talk 15:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find that this term is notable. If there is a WP:ATD-M we could redirect or merge to Rabbi. Note: merge or redirect only if an editor can show that the word is notable with RS. Wm335td (talk) 20:05, 10 September 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 and redirect to OHSAA Southwest Region athletic conferences#Metro Buckeye Conference. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Buckeye Conference[edit]

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

Tagged as non-notable for 10 years, so I'd say its time this got upgraded to afd and resolved one way or the other. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Metro Buckeye Conference is a major Conference for multiple high school sports in Southwest Ohio. That alone makes it notable. CurrentWeather (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to my reading of the criteria listed at WP:GNG, thats why its been listed here. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable conference. A a s i m 16:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 14:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. A Google search provides articles that mention the subject in passing. The only significant mention are local news articles about a team leaving the conference, which I don't think establishes notability. No results found on JSTOR, ProQuest, Gale or NYT. Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is some coverage in the relevant local newspaper, but the schools in it when it started were tiny!. I just don't see this meeting the WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 00:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OHSAA Southwest Region athletic conferences#Metro Buckeye Conference. A lack of qualifying sources on the topic alone, but can redirect to the target page as a plausible search term. There is little sourced content to merge so a redirect alone is appropriate per WP:ATD-R. -- Dps04 (talk) 06:58, 7 September 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. After extended time for discussion, there is no consensus to delete this article, and a reasonable argument that the article subject is notable based on sufficient discussion of the subject in sources independent of the subject. I note that there is one participant in the discussion who appears to have arisen as an SPA to this topic (their own protestations notwithstanding), and two other editors who have relatively little overall participation in Wikipedia, but does appear to have worked on a number of articles unrelated to the subject of discussion, and for a longer time than would be typical of an SPA. I do not find either of these to particularly match the descriptor of a "dormant account". BD2412 T 06:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lamont Lilly[edit]

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

Alleged to be A7 article, but there is enough coverage in past version to imply a degree of notability. Listing for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don’t know what an A7 article is. Zoe1013 (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoe1013: It refers to criterion for speedy deletion A7. Raymie (t • c) 02:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I assure you the subject of this article is a notable and influential activist in the North Carolina area Tarcanes (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Above editor has exclusively contributed to this article and some related talk pages. Raymie (t • c) 02:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That is not the case, I've made several contributions to multiple articles. Just not on this account. Tarcanes (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm finding very few reliable sources that mention him as more than a name drop or contributor piece: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/durham-north-carolina-police-protests/ https://abc11.com/1444304/ There's marginally more coverage outside reliable sources, mostly in left media. Raymie (t • c) 02:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I started the article years ago). Looking over the sources, I see multiple, independent sources covering the subject in detail. There are 2 interviews as well as sources detailing awards he has received. They're not perfect but there is enough to satisfy WP:GNG.--User:Namiba 03:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there is some reliable coverage, this all appears to be in local sources (Indy Weekly for example is very localized to the Raleigh-Durham area), or brief mentions in other things with a quote or two. The article appears to have been rewritten in a promotional fashion. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources covering a subject is the standard. The scope and reach of the source is not relevant, at least as far as our notability guidelines go.--User:Namiba 14:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think standard practice is that local news sources are not the same as regional/national sources. This is why we do not encourage people to write articles about every town councilmen or commissioner, despite there likely being lots of reliable source coverage about those people. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can point to where it states that, I would appreciate it. I do not see it in WP:N. In fact, it suggests otherwise "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." Anyway, Lilly was the vice-presidential nominee of a national political party and was interviewed in a variety of sources so this argument is irrelevant.--User:Namiba 15:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba: Per WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" so that's just flat out wrong. One of the notes in that policy says "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." The only feature articles I've seen on Lilly are from Indy Week and The Roanoke Tribune. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't argue that he was guaranteed notability because he was a vice-presidential candidate; I said that he is the subject of a number of in-depth independent articles, which you concede in your previous statement. I am glad that we seem to agree that there are multiple, in-depth sources covering him in detail. That's the standard for notability at WP:GNG.--User:Namiba 16:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba: A mere two sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 very good sources, multiple interviews, and many more which briefly mention or describe Lilly's activism. There are 54 references on the article itself so forgive me if I am unconvinced by your minimization.--User:Namiba 20:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: I do not have a conflict of interest, I am just familiar with this person's activism. Each citation is credible in that it confirms either his involvement at the demonstrations listed and/or the subject's political stances, which is relevant to an article about an activist/political figure. I do not know why this article is still being considered for deletion and is still receiving so much editing, particularly from Indy beetle. It meets every requirement for notability and source trustworthiness. -Tarcanes

I've been busy cleaning up things that have been sourced to blogs (which are not "trustworthy") and details which are not backed up by the sources, such as the assertion that he was born in Charlotte (reliable sources say Fayetteville) or the absolutely bogus propaganda line that he "helped encourage a wave of revolutionary activism among oppressed and working-class youth". I'm curious as to how you would know that he organized "Mixed Mic Mondays" when none of the sources you provided supported that or that you know the exact day of his birthday (reliable sources only give the year he was born, not the day). If you are friends with Mr. Lilly you should not be editing this article. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have removed much of the subjective language to prevent this article appearing promotional, keeping it strictly factual and objectively informative. I've also added a significant number of sources, both primary sources where the subject states his presence in the location/event mentioned, or secondary articles confirming the subjects involvement and expounding upon the subject's actions Tarcanes (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tarcanes: I'm still seeing PROMO issues and am attempting to clean some of them up now. If you have a WP:COI you should disclose it. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Tarcanes: "I've made several contributions to multiple articles. Just not on this account." Are you using multiple accounts to edit, or dod you mean that you've edited while logged out? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @TomStar81: While logged out -Tarcanes

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 14:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a renewed intrest in the history of socialism in America. More history is good Generaluser11 (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that this afd has brought three editors with redlinked talk pages out here I wonder if this is being matched by special interests. Seems odd largely dormant accounts would suddenly take an interest in the page. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the person meets our GNG. I suggest some serious clean up but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP but not a deletion. The person is notable per the RS. Wm335td (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (weak) I don't see an indication of notability outside of the local level, clearly doesn't meet WP:NPOL and fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG as well. The article has been refbombed, but no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. There is some good coverage in Indy Week, but multiple sources from the same publication (and a localized one at that) doesn't establish notability by itself for me. National sources only establish the non-notability of this person, see for instance this CNN article describing him as a "local activist". Worker's World newspaper is not independent and it seems most of the other sources quote him as a MOTS, not establishing notability. I would like to see a clear indication that he is notable outside of Durham before considering him notable. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article shows that he has been published widely, he was the vice-presidential nominee of a nationally-organized political party and there are multiple independent sources which cover him in detail. That many of those sources come from one region is irrelevant. This seems like a "I don't like it" argument or a "I am going to create my own standard for deletion" argument than one based on policy.--User:Namiba 12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, the only two arguments I know how to make

.^[sarcasm]

The fact that they are from one region is incredibly relevant to their notability. A profile in The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal is generally more indicative of notability than a profile in The Smalltown Tribune. I would direct you towards Indy beetle's argument above, but it's clear you have already discounted his points. The fact of the matter is that small and local publications by-and-large write about small and local news, and small and local news is not what Wikipedia should include. This is not to say that they aren't reliable, just that they don't indicate notability. If we used your standard to establish notability, we would have articles on every high school student who joined the thousand point club, on every school superintendent who had improper relations with somebody, on every local businessman who defrauded people, on every local activist who hasn't gotten all that much attention, because that's what local publications write about. While he is (presumably) not a corporation, WP:AUD is in some ways a good rule of thumb for people too. It's generally been my experience that this is the case, particularly for political figures. I point you towards numerous extensive discussions on the topic, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. It's a controversial topic that there isn't agreement upon-- We just appear to be on different sides of the debate. And That Is Just Fine. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A candidate for vice-president of the United States is not a local activist. One quoted and publishing in national and internationally trusted sources isn't equivalent to a high school student. It's a nice strawman you've built but it's definitely not comparable. It's fine to disagree but let's not disregard the facts.--User:Namiba 13:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A candidate can be notable, but when they get 4,173 votes out of over 136 million cast and their name and party aren't even mentioned on the 2016 United States presidential election, it's clear that it doesn't indicate notability. Their ticket statistically got 0.00% of the vote. Deez Nuts, a high school student, was polling higher. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's beside the point. You argued that because the most in-depth coverage of Lilly is from a regional newspaper, he isn't notable despite passing WP:GNG. I pointed out that he received coverage (including a full-length interview from The North Star) as part of his campaign for vice-president. How many votes he received is inconsequential, as your comment about another candidate. Again, facts, not your opinion or bias, matter.--User:Namiba 14:08, 11 September 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. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata[edit]

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

This article must be deleted, a duplication of the section in the Puteri Indonesia. It does not need a separate article in view of the fact that it's a runner up position in the Puteri Indonesia pageant, not a separate pageant. Richie Campbell (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For similar reason, I'm bundling the deletion with Puteri Indonesia Lingkungan ---Richie Campbell (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While in the west, beauty pageants are seen as no big deal, and rather looked down upon (female objectification!), in several countries in Asia (Indonesia, India, Phillipines) they are a Big Deal. So while Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata is awarded as a runner up position to Puteri Indonesia, it is an important title of its own. She gets to tour and perform in a way that the runners-up to Miss America or Miss USA, for example, just don't. And the three top winners of Puteri Indonesia go on to compete in three different important and unrelated international pageants, with the main Puteri Indonesia competing for Miss Universe, Puteri Indonesia Lingkungan (which I see you've also nominated for deletion, so we'll be arguing there as well) competing for Miss International, and Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata competing for Miss Supranational. They have three separate substantial articles in the Indonesian Wikipedia (which has many fewer articles than ours does): https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puteri_Indonesia https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puteri_Indonesia_Pariwisata https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puteri_Indonesia_Lingkungan. Most importantly for our purposes, Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata gets significant coverage on its own, enough to meet the Wikipedia:General Notability Guideline without Puteri Indonesia. For example, all these are unrelated non-trivial articles from reliable sources about Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata, not about Puteri Indonesia:

There are more, if needed, I'm sure I can find hundreds, these are just from the first few pages of searching. --GRuban (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Ah, I see you've combined them (I was writing the reply while these were separate AfDs). Well, the same logic applies to Puteri Indonesia Lingkungan, and here are some non-trivial articles about that as well:

Again, these are just the first few. --GRuban (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRuban. The fact remains that it is part of Puteri Indonesia pageant and the article is a duplication of the section of the Puteri Indonesia article. Regarding the sources you provided, the same is true for Miss Earth or even in the Miss Philippines Earth elemental queens i.e., Miss Earth Water, Miss Earth Air, and Miss Earth Fire; these titles (not a runner up position as per organizers) are being awarded during the finals, they perform their duties and get to travel the whole year, they get publicities and with plethora of reliable sources but I just don't see them having a separate article because they are held in one pageant night but you can use these sources to cite the winners. The sources that you provided should be used to support the Puteri Indonesia and also the annual article of Puteri Indonesia e.,g Puteri Indonesia 2019, Puteri Indonesia 2020 to indicate the list of winners.---Richie Campbell (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying the Vice President of the United States is just part of the President of the United States, so we shouldn't have a separate article for it. They are separate offices, even if they are elected at the same time in the same way at the same location, and they are each sufficiently notable. If there are enough independent in-depth articles from reliable sources about Miss Earth Water, then we can have a Miss Earth Water article, when someone gets around to writing it. That's the point of Wikipedia:General Notability Guideline, that's how we tell which deserves its own article, not just "what is part of what". We've got separate articles for Miss New York, even though that's just part of Miss America, and these winners are much more notable in every way than Miss New York, they represent more people, they get more articles written about them, they do more national and international events, etc. Heck, it seems we have separate articles for each of the Category:Miss America state pageants! --GRuban (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its different between Puteri Indonesia, Puteri Indonesia Lingkungan and Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata, they are a different titleholders, different pageants and they even has each crown and sash that lettering on their chest. Puteri Indonesia is the organization that was the national franchise holder for Miss Universe Indonesia, but there is also 2 other organization, which we called Puteri Indonesia Lingkungan-(Miss International Indonesia) who is focusing on environmental awareness and Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata-(Miss Supranational Indonesia) who is focusing on Tourism in Indonesia. And each of them are work with Indonesian President each year. Its like the same happen with Miss USA organization who also crowned Miss Teen USA at the same stage, same event and place each year, but they’re different pageants, different title with different titleholders. And even Miss USA itself has many articles such as Miss Texas USA, Miss California USA, Miss Hawaii USA, and many more!--I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that there is enough for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andri Guðjohnsen[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, who has a long history of creating non-notable articles. This player fails WP:NFOOTBALL (no professional appearances) and WP:GNG (no significant coverage, just routine transfer news or minor pieces about him and his famous dad. Notability is not inherited. Giant Snowman 14:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly reaches GNG with non-routine sources such as this one or this other one. And most of the sources focusing on his transfer also cover several other aspect of the player's career. Furthermore WP:INHERITED is about not using the argument "he's the son of **** so he is notable", it does not invalidate sources focused on the subject of the article that also mention his origins. For example the Goal reference clearly covers the subject of the player far beyond the fact he is the son of someone. --Coco (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG per Coco. Alvaldi (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coco, appears to have notability independent of his father. JohnmgKing (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:FOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ortizesp, but as I saw you write this comment without any kind of further explanation on another AfD, I was wondering: is WP:GNG completely irrelevant to you? --Coco (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it matters, but so does WP:TOOSOON, WP:FOOTY, and WP:CRYSTALBALL. If he retired tomorrow, would it make sense for him to have a page? Every youth footballer in elite academies has transfer rumours or interviews, but I don't think it makes sense for them to have a page until they professionally debut.@Cocô53:--Ortizesp (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ortizesp: Here is a litteral quote from WP:FOOTYN: "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability". As for WP:TOOSOON, it only applies to articles that do not meet notability requirement and are not "verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources" (aka GNG). As for WP:CRYSTALBALL, it really does not apply here, as the article is mainly about what the player has already done (at youth club and international level), not about some hypothetical future career.

So as per shown above, one cannot talk about the notability of an article ignoring the GNG, and as a matter of fact you even end up talking about sources such as "transfer rumours or interviews". But if you do so you must have the intellectual honesty of talking about the quality of the actual sources. Are those only routine? Do they give a significant coverage of the subject?

And about the question "if its career stoped etc.", do you think that such an article with a lot of good quality sources would be really less worthy of being on the encyclopedia than one about a player with only one little match played and only primary sources? --Coco (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he has not made a single senior appearance yet. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, not played in a WP:FPL yet. MYS 77 ^✉ 22:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly meets WP:GNG, having received far more coverage than the majority of our WP:NFOOTY-passing articles. Regularly a headline in the sports section of the major Icelandic newspaper [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] (some of these are game descriptions, but they're not routine transfer news). There is no WP:CRYSTALBALL material here, and the above voters haven't explained how they think the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, even WP:NFOOTY mentions Youth players are not notable unless [...] they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I can see just enough to scrape a GNG pass Spiderone 10:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - per above, subject clearly fails WP:NFOOTY, but there seems to be enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fails WP:NFOOTY but passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:47, 5 September 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 article has been speedy deleted per G7. (non-admin closure) – The Grid (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most successful association football clubs by country–CONCACAF[edit]

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

Although being the creator of this article, I am dubious if this article should be on Wikipedia, I'm not also sure if it qualifies for WP:NOS or not. If this article qualifies for WP:NOS and shouldn't be deleted, then I can continue on with the other articles (i.e. The CAF, AFC,UEFA,OFC and CONMEBOL versions). Josedimaria237 (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - LISTCRUFT/OR/SYNTH. Giant Snowman 10:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This was duplicated by a second nom which I closed, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most successful association football clubs by country–CONCACAF (2nd nomination). Pinging Lugnuts who also commented there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman Spiderone 15:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah, fails WP:FANCRUFT. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awdal and Borama massacre[edit]

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

This article relies on a singular source based on original research. Furthermore, this article was deleted previously ([51]) and merged with the Somali Civil War page. Jacob300 (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-02 ✍️ create

Delete, per nom. Even if there was coverage in reliable sources, I doubt it would merit a stand-alone article in conflict in which 500,000 died. There is no reason it could not be folded into Somali Civil War, Somali National Movement or other articles. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:48, 8 September 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. Will salt both titles. There is consensus here (and in all the other afd's) that McCullough is not notable, and isn't likely to become so in the future. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J.J. McCullough[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is the 5th AfD for this person. If this AfD is not closed as keep, I believe this page (and J. J. McCullough (See AfDs: 1 2)) should be salted (or fully protected if redirected) to prevent its repeated recreation. The sources I have found are:

this article, which states his opinions. Given that this is mainly about his opinions, I'm not sure whether this contributes toward GNG.
This interview with True North, not contributing toward GNG because all the coverage is his opinion on this interview. I'm also not sure about the reliability of this source, given Andrew Scheer grouped it with The Post Millenial, which nearly got deprecated.
[52][53] [54] [55] All 4 of these are related to his Quebec controversies (3 in 2017, 1 in 2014). If these pass GNG, they would still fail WP:BLP1E (It's his QC controversies) and would be better redirected to Anti-Quebec sentiment (He had a section in the article before it was removed). Username⁶⁸⁹² 11:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Username⁶⁸⁹² 11:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Username⁶⁸⁹² 11:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Username⁶⁸⁹² 11:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Username⁶⁸⁹² 11:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with salt at both titles. As with the prior attempts, this is still referenced not to reliable sources that properly contextualize his notability, but primarily to his own self-published content. As always, a journalist is not automatically notable just because his work technically metaverifies its own existence in contribution directories on the websites of his own employers — notability as a journalist requires other media outlets, who are not the issuers of his paycheques, to independently establish the significance of his journalism by writing analytical content about him and his impact in the third person. Content on Twitter and YouTube also does not speak to notability at all, because those are user generated platforms, and neither do Q&A interviews in which the subject of the article is doing the speaking about himself or other things. So once you toss all the footnotes here that are doing nothing to establish his notability, there's literally only one GNG-worthy footnote left in the article — and even it's not about him strongly enough to carry him over GNG all by itself as the only acceptable source in the article, either, because it's about an incident rather than him as a person and thus flunks WP:BLP1E. This is not how you establish the notability of a journalist, regardless of whether he's of the left or the right. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per the above, and the fact that the last debate was closed as "delete" barely 3 months ago. XOR'easter (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per WP:ENTERTAINER. In addition to his columns for the Washington Post, he also has a Youtube channel with 200,000 subscribers that is growing rapidly. He definitely has a large fan base. Scorpions13256 (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]
That appears to be part of additional criteria. Later in the guideline, it says If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria: Merge the article into a broader article providing context. The best places to merge would probably be a list of Washington Post columnists or to Anti-Quebec sentiment given that's what most sources talk about. Also, "Large fan base" is incredibly vague. I see no sources translating his 200K subscribers into a "large" fan base (his recent videos have around 70-105K views, so I guess about 70K would be the fanbase if nobody watches his videos more than once). Username⁶⁸⁹² 13:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have no evidence that YouTube subscriber counts are trustworthy, meaningful or indicative of much at all, really. What's a big number? What's a small one? Who are we comparing against? (3Blue1Brown has 15 times as many subscribers as McCullough, and that's for talking about math in a sedate voice.) How many views are from actual humans? Etc. See WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ARBITRARY. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that I have misinterpreted Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I should have looked at more than just WP:ENTERTAINER. I was also wrong to cite his subscriber count, because WP:INVALIDBIO advises against this. The lack of independent coverage (which I was aware of) means that it does not meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. An article that depends on sef-published sources to exist is not likely to be encyclopedic. For that reason, I am changing my vote. However, my vote would still stand if more appropriate sources existed. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:40, 4 September 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 accidents and incidents involving the Let L-410 Turbolet. Tone 17:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Bukavu L-410 Crash[edit]

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

Tragic but fails General notability guidelines with very poor sources, and just not enough of anything to warrant a stand-alone article. Re-direct to a Let L-410 accident section? Petebutt (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: As the creator of the article, while I would like to be able to provide a strong keep argument, I concede that I can only provide a weak one. I decided to create the article after the article on the 2020 Juba AN-26 crash was created, on the basis that the accidents were similar. I realize, however, that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a weak argument at best in a deletion discussion, and that even if it weren't, that the Juba crash has much better sources, hence my weak keep comment on my own article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzaguy875 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of accidents and incidents involving the Let L-410 Turbolet. The Star Tribune reference in the article is a WP:RS but I couldn't find additional sources in a Google news search, even when looking for various search terms. There isn't enough WP:DEPTH to justify its own article but merging to this list is where it belongs. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable cargo flight. Cargo flight crashes are quite common....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of accidents and incidents involving the Let L-410 Turbolet per Z1720. Nightfury 13:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of accidents and incidents involving the Let L-410 Turbolet per Z1720, as there's little depth to be had in the sources.--Chuka Chief (talk) 19:37, 5 September 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. Tone 17:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Storylines of Shortland Street (1992)[edit]

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

An incomplete collection of miscellaneous storylines and highlights from several years of this running soap, 1992-2005 and 2007-2013. Complete lack of sourcing verifying significant coverage of any events, written mostly like an essay. WP:FANCRUFT. No other soap show has storyline articles like this. Ajf773 (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related and part of a group:

Delete the soap opera is not notable at this level of detail. Maybe a paragraph in the main article would surffice. NealeFamily (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexsander Iakobachvili[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, non-notable businessman -- Whiteguru (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Temur has posted comments on the talk page of this discussion that users might want to read before closing this. Z1720 (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi @Temur:. It might be worth posting on here. Very few folk actually look at the talk page of an Afd, as the discussion takes place on the main page. If you can find your top three sources and post them here, we can examine them. We can use the top three sources to determine if the person is notable. The best three sources are a reasonably quick way of verifying if it is notable, without wading through perhaps dozens of other sources that don't necessarily add any value. scope_creep^Talk 13:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 7 September 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. Tone 17:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord of the Rings: Gollum[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per crystal-ball, this is all future stuff. Who knows what may happen, and when - this is not encyclopedic. Best to wait until there is something definite, as always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not yet published game Per - wait till its published, or closer to that time - WPcrystal-ball Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not yet published; references are insufficient, and, WP is not a crystal ball. -- Whiteguru (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge cited content to the developing company. --Izno (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually have to say Keep, as more can be said about the game beyond its announcement. IGN details with game's narrative designer, Eurogamer on some art direction, and as there was more discussed this weekend (via virtual Gamescom) more may come this week. We have a publisher-planned release window of next year as well, and know the game has been in the works (this isn't some yet-to-be-started project). (If we didn't have any in-depth coverage of the type of gameplay, and just teaser trailers, merging would be better) --Masem (t) 14:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources Masem showed. The article is currently very underdeveloped, but there are in-depth sources available.--Alexandra^IDV 16:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To further elaborate: Crystalball does not prohibit articles about planned or expected future events (Heat death of the universe, Eurovision Song Contest 2021), so long as they are backed up by sources, aren't original research, and are phrased appropriately. This is not a case of "I think it's likely that a Gollum game will happen, so I'm going to write an article based on my speculation and present it as fact".--Alexandra^IDV 07:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the IGN and Eurogamer articles. Eurogamer's is particularly focused on a small detail (Gollum's hair), so it's clear that there is interest in the upcoming game. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's upcoming, sure. But nothing here fails WP:CRYSTAL, as none of it is unverifiable speculation. The articles in IGN and Eurogamer, both reliable sources, are enough for a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:00, 3 September 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. Tone 17:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About (singer)[edit]

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

Alleged to be an A7 article, but there's enough information in the article's history tab that I'd feel better letting the community decide whether to swing the axe in this case. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is worth mentioning that half of the article's references are from the same website. I'm curious to know if the artist has enoguh significant coverage or not. Foxnpichu (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can deliver reliable sources that are translated from Korean to English. This guy's manager should advise him to change his stage name because it is hideously unsearchable in any language. Searching for his birth name in English (Jo Tae-kyoung) or stage name in Korean (어바웃) in conjunction with something like "singer" brings up what look like exclusively Korean social media promotions and streaming sites, like those already in the article. I was unable to find an entry on him at Korean Wikipedia, but again I may have been thwarted by his pointless name. Even less comes up in sites that use English. Unless someone proficient in Korean can deliver something useful, I must conclude that this article is just an attempted promotion for a singer with little media notice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided some pretty good points there, so I'm going to say Delete as well. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SINGER. The references in the article are almost entirely made up of online music stores. Coverage in Korean-language media is almost non-existent and he has failed to chart on South Korea's national singles and albums charts. Ə XPLICIT 09:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to an absence of independent sources and evidence of importance.Edittac (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't pass GNG BASIC or NSINGER. BEFORE just showed promos and social media. // Timothy :: talk 13:25, 7 September 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. Tone 17:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnotic Illusions[edit]

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

There is just barely enough information in the article to suggest that this satisfies the threshold needed to avert speedy deletion, so I'm listing here for community input TomStar81 (Talk) 08:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NALBUM... the DJ who compiled this album has no article himself (the blue link is a redirect) and I can't find any information about this record at all. This was created by an author who is in the process of creating dozens of articles every day, despite being warned that most of them are non-notable, like this one, and that AllMusic listings without a rating or review and using the album's own liner notes as a citation do not demonstrate notability. Richard3120 (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the reasoning given by the nominator and previous voter. The article's creator is a veteran editor who should know better, and perhaps should be talked to about a recent rush of articles on obscure non-notable albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacks any coverage in reliable sources, significant or otherwise. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:37, 31 August 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. – Joe (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney A. Beeers[edit]

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

Non notable 'inventor' Essentialy this is a snippet from Scientific American, 1858, based on their reprinting of a patent application.

Making a patent application and having SA reporting your pretty diagram does not notability make.

Beeers gets zero gHits apart from this article & the commons image. Tagishsimon (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being vigilant, but deleting this article would certainly be a bit overzelous. Sidney A. Beeers was ahead of his time, as Elastic Track Support (EGG) is quite common these days. Therefore, I do not see a need, for refusing the credit to the original patent holder. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having a Wikipedia page is not a reward or honor, and not a mechanism to give credit to someone who did something we think is deserving of recognition but is not notable as Wikipedia defines it. Agricolae (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the page was moved to a name without the typo, but I moved it back pending a decision on this AfD, else it would apply just to the redirect. If the conclusion is to retain the page, then it will need to be moved again to the correct spelling. That being said . . . . Agricolae (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the cited sources provide any biographical detail on the subject, nor does any other non-primary source I have found. The Scientific American item is a summary of the invention that only gives the inventor's name and address as it appears on the patent documentation (not his only address - he seems to be living somewhere else in every record I find). The second reference is that patent itself, and again the only information it provides about the subject is his name and address. The third reference is a list of patents relevant to railroads, and gives nothing more than his name, and the fourth is a map that he drafted, which has his name on it. A Google Books search for "Sidney A. Beers" returns just eleven hits that name him, which are all either a summary of the American patent or mention of the map without further describing Beers or providing any further details on the man. A search using his full middle name turns up another 13 hits, all of them British sources either listing or briefly describing the same patent when he applied for it in Britain. He did have a passport application and shows up in censuses, Brooklyn city directories, and the 1863 tax rolls, but this is just the typical detritus of a run-of-the-mill mid-19th century life and does not constitute personal WP:NOTABILITY. Agricolae (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move or keep: @Agricolae: Thank you very much for the comprehensive search. Do you think moving the article to Improved elastic railroad would resolve the perceived lack of notability? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current content has no article-quality (WP:GNG-satisfying) sourcing, no matter what name you give it. Bare patent announcements do not establish notability for either Sydney Beers or for Improved elastic railroad, nor does parroting the descriptions and claims made in an original patent application indicate that any of the content is reliable or noteworthy (patents are usually granted by default, as long as the application satisfies the appropriate forms, and their accuracy is only tested when challenged). Moving this only puts the same problematic content (most of which deals with Beers and not the railroad) under a different namespace, but doesn't resolve the inherent lack of notability. It is not even clear to me that Improved elastic railroad is really 'a thing' and not just the description Beers used for his invention in the patent application. For a stand-alone article specifically on Beers' track design, we would need multiple later sources indicating the importance of that specific design, and we don't have that. Simply having a patent granted is insufficient for WP:GNG, not for the inventor, not for the invented item, and moving this fails to address the core problem that it just isn't notable. Agricolae (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searched in JSTOR, found a lot of ideas for reducing maintenance costs on railroads, but nothing about this. His name brings up nothing. // Timothy :: talk 12:19, 9 September 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 Environmental issues in Toronto. Tone 06:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greening Greater Toronto[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable initiative. As far as I can tell, it released one report in 2008 and did very little else. The report did get some coverage in the Toronto Star ([56], [57]) and CityNews ([58]). By article count alone, you might think that passes WP:THREE. But I just have a hard time believing that a single report released 12 years ago with no apparent long-term impact is an encyclopedic topic. Would be nice to get some clarity on this one way or another, since it's been tagged for notability for over 11 years. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to environmental issues in Toronto. This initiative probably should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, but I don't think it's notable enough to merit its own article. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to environmental issues in Toronto. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Merging sounds like a great idea! I would suggest that the eventual merger (I'd do it myself, if consensus is to merge) be selective—there's a lot of peacocks, weasels, and puffery hanging out in this article at the moment. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:02, 31 August 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) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Helm[edit]

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

Fails GNG does not appear to pass alternate criteria for WP:ANYBIO either

"1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." -does not appear so.
"2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." - being the largest "individual sheep farmer" restricted to within Fresno County, CA isn't even close to being historically significant in the field of animal husbandry.
"3. The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." The things he does appear in are tailored to somewhat important local figures and it maybe of important to the local community and I don't believe they're anything even remotely similar to Dictionary of National Biography.

Moreover, it's a condensed copy-and-paste from a self-published family genealogy website. Since copyright release is in file, copyright isn't an issue, but the contents aren't really encyclopedic. copyvios report

It's essentially an article that was created off Wiki for what seems like a family memorial purposes than encyclopedic that has been imported into Wikipedia from that point of view through copyright release. From my assessment of the GNG and ANYBIO criteria, it doesn't serve encyclopedic purpose to have that article on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on WP:BASIC, significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable. The following citations show that William Helm was notable:

Secondary source with the "History of Fresno County California with Biographical Sketches".
Secondary source with the "History of the State of California with Biographical Record".
Secondary source with "The Valley's Legends & Legacies".

From the COI editor: --Greg Henderson (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on triviality, on one end of the scale is a one line mention in the news paper and on the other end is an entire book written about them. From the WP:BASIC page, "A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like many wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion". So the range is very wide.

Going over those sources one by one The Valley's Legends & Legacies III is a 368 page book; and it is a volume of a series of six volumes that's devoted to the Central Valley of the US State of California. A page in a collection that with a narrow focus would be relatively trivial. These are books that talk about somewhat important people in that area, like people who were shop keepers, herders and like.

History of the State of California with Biographical Record "noteworthy among the pioneer settlers of Fresno county is William Helm, a respected and valued citizen of Fresno." about a page in a 1643 page book.

History of Fresno County California with Biographical Sketches 1 1/2 pages in a 2603 page book.

Somewhat of an importance in the local history, but keep in mind that even local city politicians aren't automatically notable for Wikipedia and I don't think this person's notability rises to a level of importance of having their own stand alone article. On the level of interest, I am seeing a daily average of 3 over the last five years; with the all time high daily view occurring as a result of the AfD. Graywalls (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I were to use an encyclopedia to look up notable sheep farmers in California, shouldn't I be able to find William Helm? There is even a city named after him. BTW, since 2015, there has been 5,615 pageviews! --Greg Henderson (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No more so than being able to find the name of biggest potato grower in the State of Idaho that was an individual in 1900s. There is indeed a lot of articles that shouldn't have been put on Wikipedia in the first place. If you happen to find others exist, there's good chance those don't meet notability standards and you're free to nominate them for AfD as well. Graywalls (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have a differrent interpretation of WP:BASIC. To me, significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources is what has been cited for William Helm. It will be interesting to see what other Keep/Delete votes we get. --Greg Henderson (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject appears notable enough. An independently published page on someone is a page on them whether it's half of a two-page pamphlet or 1/10,000 of a multi-volume work. His obituary in The Fresno Morning Republican was also quite substantial, running two columns and covering much the same ground. BD2412 T 19:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a prominent early pioneer with some fairly extensive coverage in local and state histories. With the exception of the Family Search and Find-a-grave references, this article doesn't seem to be based on genealogical research, and looks fine for the most part. Curiocurio (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The secondary sources (books and obituary) constitute WP:SIGCOV satisfying WP:BASIC. 24.151.56.107 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Howard (contactee)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

May be a WP:FRINGEBLP. The lone RS included as a source does indeed mention the subject of the article (see [59], by David M. Jacobs), but just once. There are also hits in in-universe ufology newsletters, but we can't use those. I could not find reviews of her books to establish WP:NAUTHOR. Previous AfD was in 2009, so I think this deserves fresh consideration. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent RS, most references are to her own work. I checekd google and google scholar, nothing much came up on her. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these pages are so frustrating. I would love to keep it as I'm sure it is interesting reading and even a good psychological study for future researchers. But we can't give Wikipedia pages to people just because they are authors. Otherwise Wikipedia would be overrun. Whomever wrote this page sadly misunderstood what notability on Wikipedia means. Sgerbic (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very clear fail of our fringe rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 1 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faith History[edit]

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

New page review: BLP of a tv and radio host sourced to interviews and PR pieces with no genuine sustained coverage in independent sources. Her name makes an online search for other sources rather difficult. There’s another Faith Temitope in Zambia who’s obviously not the same person. Mccapra (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, no RS here to substantiate claims. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, as per above comment -- Whiteguru (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 16:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about her aside from an article from Talk Media Africa. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable.Tbiw (talk) 20:44, 1 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Country Club[edit]

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

The subject of this unsourced article doesn't meet sufficient notability requirements for an article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article filled with meaningless puffery on a completely run-of-the-mill golf course. The sole claim to notability I could find was its being named the 32nd best golf course in Massachusetts by "top100golfcourses.com" ([60])—and that's hardly a ringing endorsement. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing special. Donald Ross designed but there are plenty of those. Nigej (talk) 08:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:20, 31 August 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnet Infinity TV (MiTV)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Raymie (t • c) 04:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:BROADCAST or WP:GNG. The only coverage I can find at all is a handful of reprinted press release churnalism from the time of the channel's launch. In Nov 2008. And then absolutely nothing after that. This type of coverage confirms that the subject existed (or at least was launched) and that the PR department managed to get some noise out in advance. But this type of coverage is not "independent of the subject" and doesn't confirm notability. Lasting or otherwise. That there is no coverage at all after that, even to the extent that the subject's apparent demise was not worthy of coverage, suggests that it is/was not notable. If, for some reason, there is consensus to keep the title, then it should be redirected to Magnet Networks. As the content of the article is entirely uncited, a decade or more out-of-date, and generally of little to no value independent of the parent company/operator. Guliolopez (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:08, 31 August 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indiavibes[edit]

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

Non-notable digital streaming network, coverage is mostly routine and fails WP:CORP. Raymie (t • c) 03:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 03:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 03:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 03:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete —Non-notable company. Bombarding of external links.Priyanjali singh (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom. VocalIndia (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable company. Confirm bombarding of references. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the site aside from an article from Economic Times. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:09, 1 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manasulo Maata[edit]

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

Non notable film, with no independent reviews found in a WP:BEFORE. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable individual Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM Spiderone 17:23, 31 August 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liyann Seet[edit]

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

Does not passes WikiProject Beauty Pageants notability guidelines and GNG. Interviews and information are trivial based on after her first runner-up spot and Miss Asia Pacific Petite World title (sub title under the same non-notable pageant) Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable individual Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to not passing Beauty Pageants notability guidelines as stated by nom, sections on being a young investor and fashion trendsetter are WP:PROMO in nature. Refs are mainly interviews. Information about her appearing in various publications as model or representing the various brands are not immediate verifiable in stated sources. – robertsky (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 1 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghassan Alshami[edit]

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

No indication of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 02:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable singer and musician. Fails WP:SINGER. Priyanjali singh (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable artist. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched and did not find indication of notability. Graywalls (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Nika2020 (talk) 12:38, 1 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Santens[edit]

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

Article about a journalist/activist who does not seem meet the requirements of WP:GNG There is a lot of noise from organizations directly attached to his causes. The others that come from reliable sources are barely mentions of him. The sources used in the actual article cannon be considered reliable for the purposes of notability. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, this is an article with references to support this journalist's causes. Does not meet notability. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:17, 31 August 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ROI Capital[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a promotion of an investment company. Priyanjali singh (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. The current state of the article is edging close to G11 territory. Would also point out that the author of the article was a SPA and little has changed since then in terms of the tone of the article. -- Dps04 (talk) 04:00, 7 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preye Odede[edit]

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

A promotional article about a non-notable musician who fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician. He does not pass any of our defined methods of showing a musician is notable. Also the article is too promotional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Sebastian's Church, Chittattukara[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUILD/WP:NORG. I found a few directory entries and some namedrops in the Kerala Gazette but nothing that appears to be WP:SIGCOV. The claims about its ancient lineage are unsourced and I could not verify them. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NCHURCH, churches are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this church doesn't pass Spiderone 20:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having existed since 1770, it's highly unlikely that a fairly large church would have went unnoticed in the media. Sources are quite likely to exist in print media and in the native language. The Thrissur city police website notes "... and Chittattukara St. Sebstian's Church Thirunal are the most important festivals conducted by Christian community within Pavaratty ..." which indicates potential notability. The church is mentioned in this book but I can't see full extract. – SD0001 (talk) (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perSD0001 if it has existed since 1770 feel WP:NEXIST is relevant.Further there could be coverage in the local Malayalam language. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I certainly sympathize with the views noted above, I would note that—as far as I can see—no one has pointed to a reliable source indicating that that this church was founded in 1770, as the article currently claims. Fwiw, the church's website [61] does not appear to mention this date. I find arguments based on WP:NEXIST less persuasive if we do not have clear evidence of the church's age and prominence. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Fwiw, I just found [62], which is a primary source from the archdiocese in which the church is located. It does give a founding date of 1770, which I find reasonably persuasive. I'd love to find some sort of independent confirmation of this, however. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1770 is the date for establishing the parish. The church itself is a few decades younger than this (but still more than 200 years old). Oleryhlolsson (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AleatoryPonderings's concern on lack of sources is valid. However, I found some mentions of this church in this book titled "Father Nidhiry, 1842-1904: A History of His Times", the details cannot be accessed to know whether the church really belongs to that period. If the church is really that old, it should be in a government list of historic heritage sites like the Indian equivalent of National Register for Historic Places. That could make it pass WP:NCHURCH or WP:NBUILD, marginally at least. Nomian (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A church building originating from 1770 is definitely noteworthy. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NCHURCH, churches are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this church doesn't pass - it speculation to say that the ancestors were baptised by St Thomas Apostle. Listing mass times and chapels under the auspice of this church does not make this notable. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The contents of the article at present are irrelevant to notability. Churches are not inherently notable, ok, but how can you claim that it does not meet GNG without having access to sources like this (also linked above) -- from which quite frankly it looks as if the subject is covered significantly, although GBooks is displaying only a snippet. – SD0001 (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The site cited suggests the current building does not in fact date to 1770, though the Catholic parish would. Regardless, WP:ITSOLD is not a valid argument and there is not automatic notability for age. Not shown to have significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 18:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a building is proved to be that old, it's a place of historic significance, similar to the sites listed at National Register for Historic Places. I think we should wait until a google search in the local language is performed. Nomian (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, the present church isn't the one who have been used as parish church since the formation of the parish in 1770. The present church is actually the third church of the parish, and is a few decade younger than the parish itself, probably built shortly after the year 1800, but the exact year/date dosen't seem to be remembered any more (I've updated an improved the article on various points). I agree, that it would be to rash to conclude lack of sources when a search in the local language haven't been done. For what I can see, there are lot of printed material in the local language, but if any of this deals whit the history of the church, I can't tell - but what is evident is 1) The church is mentioned in "Father Nidhiry, 1842-1904: A History of His Times" and 2) The church has significant coverage (found on the internet) in various languages 3) We haven't fully established to what extent the church is mentioned in older printed material & 4) The "Kambidi Thirunnal" seem to be a well known feast also attracting visitors from beyond the borders of the parish - "famed by it's fireworks". All in all I can't recommend a deletion of the article. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Several participants in this discussion have noted that there does not appear to have been a search in non-English texts. I posted this note at WP:INDIA to ask if anyone was able to do that (I can't). Note to closer and others: I assume that this is not inappropriate canvassing—if anything, it would make deletion less likely—but I am open to a reprimand if so. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:44, 3 September 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://ekantipur.com/32/2015/08/28/20150828182547.html

[1]