< 11 October	13 October >

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. JGHowes ^talk 02:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan Sauder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did not participate in any major international competition, nor achieved any significant rank in any competition at all. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and also WP:BASIC due to no coverage on her. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 04:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable skateboarder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 15 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wade DesArmo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did not participate in any major international competition, nor achieved any significant rank in any competition at all. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and also WP:BASIC due to no coverage on her. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 04:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Walwal20 - there's not even an allegation of notability. Badly fails all tests of notability. In 2020, everybody knows we are not a social media website. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage found except some promo pieces [1] [2] [3] Spiderone 07:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 14:25, 18 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nurit Shany[edit]

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

Cannot see how this passes WP:ARTIST. Promotional. Looking at the editor's talkpage and ongoing discussion at WP:COIN, undisclosed paid editing may be an issue too. Edwardx (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Edwardx (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I depend on machine translation to read Hebrew, so I may have missed something, but https://www.haaretz.co.il/gallery/art/exibitions/event-1.3515952 which initially looked like it might be a proper review (We consider Haaretz generally reliable) was written by the curator of the exhibition, so it's not independent. Vexations (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haaretz is a good source, but it's a PR material of the gallery.This is the curator words taken from the exhibition catalogue or paper, it's in Leonardo gallery, a payed gallery I presume. I have been looking, i'm not sure if it's a payed gallery here. It might be not a real gallery but an exhibition space sponsor by Kibbutz Artzi (the space is inside it's headquarters) building. Maybe they are giving space to unknown Kibbutz artists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.167.137 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:ARTIST on any of the criteria for notability. I saw this article some months ago and noticed it was authored by a likely COI editor, which it now seems is UPE. The article is very promotional WP:PROMO, with the content and citations very puffed up. For example, one citation supposedly to "Narit Shany at the Israel Museum" is basically a slide-registry, just a list of exhibitions she has had elsewhere at mostly non-notable galleries. The sourcing is Primary or User-submitted, with many of the exhibitions and all of the collections sourced to her website or user-generated sites. None of the collections are museum collections. Netherzone (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The english entry is very similiar to the hebrew one which was written by two payed editors, one of them Yinonk is blocked indefinitely in the english wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.197.72 (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Netherzone. I add that neither Jerusalem nor Tel Aviv are considered "art capitals". It's not that far to Venice, Athens, or Milan. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 14 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X-Terminator[edit]

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

Above-average gameshow contestant that reached the final four of Robot Wars once. Article is all unsourced match reports with no claim of any real-world significance or legacy in its field. Interestingly, over a decade later this robot ended up in the hands of a Robot Wars fan who wanted to shoot Donald Trump, but that's a passing reference and guilt by association if it was ever used to justify this page existing Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. There is nothing to merge, and a redirect is unnecessary. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks coverage that is independent of the subject and independent of Robot Wars Spiderone 23:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 14:58, 19 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T.R.A.C.I.E.[edit]

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

I am at a loss as to how this has avoided deletion for nine years, and also why this page was made in the first place. This was a contestant in the first series of Robot Wars, an immensely popular BBC show around the turn of the millennium, but we don't have a page for every Millionaire contestant. This contestant won its heat and took part in a six-way final at the end of the show, which it lost. At most, it was on TV for 30 minutes, as it never returned to the show afterwards. All we have apart from commentary on its performance is a claim that it was the first robot to run both ways up, and that a comedy actor was one of many students who took part in its building. There were Robot Wars contestants like Razer (robot) that had some minor real-world importance by competing and winning for years on end, but I struggle to see the importance of this one Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note of possible conflict of interest creation of this page: this robot was built by King Edward VI Grammar School, Chelmsford. Creator says he became a data analyst at an unnamed school in Chelmsford in July 2011, just before making this page. [4] Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing to merge, no redirect necessary. Same vote and reason as given on WP:Articles for deletion/X-Terminator Footlessmouse (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks coverage that is independent of the subject Spiderone 23:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per accurate description by nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails everything. JK.Kite (talk) 20:02, 16 October 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) 04:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Henthorn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page seems to be an advertisement/resume page essentially. Mehrpw (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mehrpw (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Nothing in the article right now shows any notability by way of significant coverage of him in independent sources. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 15 October 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) 04:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Stuti Khare Shukla[edit]

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

Promotional article; no indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ... discospinster _talk 20:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass GNG or NBIO. Looks like spam. Natureium (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:32, 19 October 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 John Garabedian#2000s–2018 (sale of Superadio, launch of XY.tv, end of Open House Party). (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XY TV[edit]

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

Failure to meet WP:GNG. Coverage was pretty sparse or of the "person appointed to management post" type, such as [5]. Raymie (t • c) 20:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 20:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John Garabedian#2000s–2018 (sale of Superadio, launch of XY.tv, end of Open House Party). It's a short lived venture that attracted little attention but there is some information at the article about its founder. -- Whpq (talk) 12:48, 18 October 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) 04:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Mistry[edit]

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

Unclear notability. Articles used as sources are mainly about the hotel company, not the subject himself. At least one of the articles (Times of India) has a disclaimer that it is basically an advert (and also appears word-for-word in other places). I can't find significant discussion of this individual in multiple reliable sources (that are not clearly promotional in nature). ... discospinster _talk 20:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rogermx (talk) 14:46, 17 October 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 — nomination withdrawn and no !votes to delete. XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

George Basalla[edit]

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

There is no evidence that Basalla passes any academic notability guidelines. I do not see evidence of him being cited enough or other signs of impact that would allow him to pass guidelines 1, and no other guidelines does he even come close. The sourcing is no where near meeting GNG. Almost all the sources are dead. The exceptions are good reads, which is not a reliable source, the US census, which is in some ways not reliable and more to the point a primary source that seeks to record information on all residents of the US, not at all something showing notability. Then we have the subject's own website. A search for more resources came up with some passing mentions in various articles on JSTOR, but no actual sustained coverage, especially not in any meaningful way of him. We just do not have sources to show he is notable, and I can not see how he really passes any of the notability prongs for academics. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACADEMIC#1 His seminal work is reviewed here on JSTOR and Proquest University of Chicago Press. Lightburst (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many citations on single author works and first author ones. Plus, there are the reviews mentioned above. Passes WP:NPROF. At least 2652 citations on "The evolution of technology" and at least 993 on "The spread of western science". Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per WP:PROF#C1 and his heavy citations on Google scholar as above and per WP:AUTHOR and the many reviews of his books that I've just added to his article. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw With the added sources I am now convinced we have enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 13 October 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) 04:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Webzine[edit]

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

I placed a PROD on this article with the rationale "An article about a recent new online publication, referenced to primary sources and listings. Searches are not finding evidence that this publication has attained notability by WP:GNG or as described in the WP:NPERIODICAL essay." The PROD was removed by an IP without comment or improvement to the article, so I am now bringing it to AfD with the same rationale as the PROD. AllyD (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence this zine passes WP:GNG or related policies. Looks like the usual attempt to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only references are to primary sources and I can find nothing to indicate notability n my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This seems to be about a NN On-line magazine, focusing on the life of one Indian nationalist, and no doubt using his political ideas to promote those of a minor sectional interest in Indian politics. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 18 October 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) 04:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Patron[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Sources are either promotional, don't mention him, or only mention him trivially or as someone marginally involved in an event. ... discospinster _talk 20:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The first two paragraphs regarding his biography and his agency are straight copyvio from his website [6] and must be deleted. This is purely promotional, relying on two primary source interviews with Mr. Patron talking about himself and his agency and which are from two websites that don't pass WP:RS (the blogs on Huffington Post are not considered reliable sources compared with the rest of the site). The only part which is independently reported is the section on the illegal party, which the article creator has tried to remove as "not relevant", which is probably true, but it leaves the article with absolutely nothing in the way of independent sources. Richard3120 (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 15 October 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) 04:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Thobias[edit]

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

Promotional article sourced by other promotional articles (i.e. in websites that exist to showcase and boost Google ratings rather than inform). ... discospinster _talk 20:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 21:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete paid for spam sourced to fake news sites run by black hat seo firms to boost the embellished importance of their clients. Praxidicae (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from a California Herald article about him. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 17 October 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) 04:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bibleblack[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG for the following reasons, broken down by each criteria:

lacks the "multiple, non-trivial" part of criterion #1 ("multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself")
"Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." - does not appear to have had anything chart (1, 2)
"Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country." - per #2 by default (can't have a record certified gold or higher if nothing ever charted)
"Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" -- per #1
"Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." - per the article, only ever released one album, so fails "multiple" and was on a redlinked label anyways
"Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 5] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)" - only Mike Wead is notable, so fails on "two or more". Full disclosure: article did link to Simon Johansson (a pro hockey player), but that is the wrong one and I didn't see any other articles about another "Simon Johansson". As such, I removed the wikilinks.
"Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." - not the case as found through #1
"Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." - not the case per current available sourcing in my WP:BEFORE search
"Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." - not found in BEFORE and not mentioned in the article
"Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications)." - does not appear the case as their only work itself was non-notable
"Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." - no evidence of this in currently available sourcing that I have found
"Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network." - no evidence of this in currently available sourcing that I have found TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only one album on questionable label. Geschichte (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band. Only results I found connected to the Swedish Bibleblack were the usual junk sources. Metal Storm only lists the trivial stuff, and on Sputnikmusic, the whole coverage is the following: "A Swedish melodic death/thrash metal band." That's it. No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. The band has no page on the Swedish Wiki either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

California Literary Review[edit]

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

The article cites only the magazine's website itself, Facebook and Alexa, and I could not otherwise find significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Rublov (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While I personally feel the proliferation of articles about minor parties isn't a good thing, consensus here is clear enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legalise Cannabis Queensland[edit]

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

Notability not established. Party has no elected members and coverage is routine for a newly announced party. There are also WP:NOTPROMO concerns, given that the election only a few weeks away. 1292simon (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator) – creation of articles for political parties, even minor ones, registered with the Australian Electoral Commission or a state electoral commission is routine and frequent and has been for years, and is a valuable part of comprehensive historical election coverage in Australia. Content is in no way promotional (my editing history in politics and elections should make that clear), and yes the state election is in a few weeks but LCQ was the only party registered with the Electoral Commission of Queensland with no article. --Canley (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The general (admittedly informal) rule has been to have separate articles for parties that are registered and run endorsed candidates in federal or state elections. We have made rare exceptions for the truly obscure, but this is clearly not one of them. Canley's point above easily refutes any WP:NOTPROMO concerns and there is adequate (though not extensive) sourcing, with more inevitable over the next few weeks. Frickeg (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify This seems like a case of WP:TOSOON. As it appears that know one has ran for the party, there are hardly sources about it or people who are running in connection to it, and last time I checked a political party has to have some winning candidates to be notable anyway. That said, I wouldn't have a problem with it being drafted to the article creators user space so it can be worked on to the point of being notable if it ever is. There's really no guarantee at this point that it will be though. As a side thought, if the article creator (or anyone else) thinks that the purpose of Wikipedia is to be a place for "comprehensive historical election coverage" of Australia or anywhere else, then they should really revaluate things and review the guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a topic that interests you, but it's patently obvious that hundreds of Wikipedians have created thousands of articles of comprehensive election coverage and the many times this information is referenced in the media and research shows it is useful and valuable—there's certainly no guideline against it as you suggest. Speaking of guidelines, where is the rule "the last time [you] checked" that "a political party has to have some winning candidates to be notable anyway"? --Canley (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources that mention the party and/or its candidates that could be used to expand the article and help justify its notability:

https://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/mackay-candidate-sick-of-being-labelled-a-criminal/4114620/
https://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/car-crash-altered-life-of-pro-cannabis-whitsunday-/4111581/
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/queensland/replay-rockhampton-debate-candidates-go-headtohead-ahead-of-2020-qld-election/video/5d629cb0d5658d13291eab49aa6ad11a
https://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/candidates-address-gracemere-high-school-and-bully/4114561/
https://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/car-crash-altered-life-of-pro-cannabis-whitsunday-/4111581/
https://www.news-mail.com.au/news/war-of-words-candidates-clash-over-health-worker-n/4113674/
https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/gold-coast-election-2020-former-diplomat-dr-carl-ungerer-named-as-mermaid-beach-candidate/news-story/f5593387ddcfa58e476255f2648cc945
https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/dying-to-know-voters-urged-to-seek-answers-before-/4105974/
https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/regional/rockhampton-candidates-lock-horns-in-online-debate-tonight/news-story/a4985fac951b9f97a7e24901bd1bd341
https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-election-2020-bundaberg-live-debate-tonight/news-story/e40169f938035394ec17a3c9d035c009

I am not able to verify or use some of the sources myself as some are behind a paywall. Helper201 (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been significant coverage of this party, as shown above, the article should just be improved rather than being deleted. Political parties only need significant coverage to be notable, they don't need elected members. Many historically important and influential parties (such as the Communist Parties in a lot of countries) would be removed from the site if having an MP is the sole definer of notability. See List of political parties in the United Kingdom and List of political parties in the United States. Catiline52 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Texas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was kept 12 years for minor awards that most definitely do not cut the mustard now. Seems an epic GNG and ENT fail and as a BLP needs better sourcing. My first 5 pages of search had nothing worthwhile and there was nothing on the news tab either. Her breakout mainstream film role (singular) does not justify a page of its own. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PORNBIO. Sourcing is porn industry publications, and the awards are not notable. Wm335td (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The case of notable porn star without reliable sources strikes back. The problem here is that Hannah Montana was almost called Alexis Texas, so that’s pretty much the only safe for work stuff you will find with that name. I do believe that industry specific sources like AVN should be allowed to keep though. Trillfendi (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

comment if this page can't pass ENT, then no pornstar can pass ENT, and all of them would have to pass GNG. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of meeting any criterion of WP:ENT need the support of much better quality sources. The article has a large number of citations, but nearly all of them fall under the interview, press release, appearance credit or porn award roster categories. Do independent reliable sources acknowledge significant roles in multiple notable productions, a significant fan base or a cult following? Porn awards don't cut it without independent RS acknowledgement. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k, Usernamekiran, and Trillfendi: This has been done below. Given the prominence of this figure, there is probably even more out there. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - At the least, WP:ENT #2 & #3 apply. Without time to dig super deep on sources ("Texas" makes the task more difficult), her inclusion in Confessions of the Hundred Hottest Porn Stars: ... Tell-Alls from the Biggest Names in the Biz serves as an accurate characterization. She has been one of the most well-known figures in the field for about a decade. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 12:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, she is the sole subject of what is basically a biography, The Alexis Texas Handbook - Everything You Need to Know about Alexis Texas, published by Heinemann. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 12:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the suitability of this source has been challenged below. Irregardless, this figure was still the third most followed pornographic actor at one time (or close to; assuming that trend followed across other social media platforms) as explicitly pointed out and reliably cited by Morbidthoughts below. That alone meets criteria criterion #2 of WP:ENT. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 13:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Godsy. Coverage goes beyond her name's "connection" to Hannah Montana. Article is good enough to pass WP:ENT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep focus of sole biography by notable publisher, per Godsy. Not to mention "Alexis Texas porn" getting 1,830 hits on google books [7], not to mention being cited in one book length study of "female genital cosmetic surgery" as "one of the most successful porn stars of the decade" [8]. The many mentions in books seems to throw if a BEFORE search was properly done into question. I would love WM335td to specifically prove how these books are "porn industry publications". GuzzyG (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a add on since the books were ignored by the bottom below vote, i know this means nothing on it's own, but as a cherry on top from the books; here's her page views from every wiki language [9], 17 mil total - 5.4mil in Farsi, 1mil in Spanish, 1mil in Turkish and nearly a mil in Arabic. Which proves atleast being known internationally. To compare a more local but obviously important figure, Joseph Smith, [10] he gets 7mil - with no million views in a language other than English. While fame isn't important, when you mix biographies from reputable publishers, book mentions and 10 mil more pageviews than established figures with clear notability and including international views, i think that paints a overall more clearer picture of notability. GuzzyG (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The likely problem here is, given the commonplace disagreements over pornographic figures regarding awards and whatnot, that some cannot distinguish extremely notable cases (as in this case). Moreover, some likely cannot get past the social taboo of the subject or simply morally stigmatize it (and are thereby unconversant). Alexis Texas is almost certainly in the top 100 (if not 50 or less) most prominent figures in the field of all time. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i've witnessed the pro-longed years long beat down of the criteria for porn stars, yet none for the "one game pro sports stars" biographies which points to it being a moral thing. The killer is industry specific sources are labled as "non bias" and "promotional" but a one film actor can have a source in Variety (magazine) and it's ok. But Alexis and Mandingo (who was deleted) being non notable is obviously way off base. Alexis has gotten 5.4 million views in the Farsi wikipedia. If that does not show for some sort of notability than half of wiki would not qualify, it's just hardly any other field gets their primary/industry specific sources banned. Ion Cuțelaba would fit these same arguments, "would never get developed more than a stub" etc and is completely sourced to mma specific sites, but they're not banned. Apply that to every field. It's got to the point where the people who win the main award in porn are considered "not notable" and some don't have articles, some are even in pop culture like Lana Rhoades and don't have one or even where this was a relisted discussion despite her being cited as "one of the most successful porn stars of the decade" in a book [11] published by a reliable publisher of academic journals and books Springer Publishing and not by a complete irrelevant random person [12], not to mention the biography you found with another publisher who has a wiki, yet this was doubted in a way and relisted for discussion. Pageviews don't mean nothing on their own, but here's Megan Thee Stallion, a popstar currently all over the mainstream media and yet has only 6.2 mil[13], compared with Alexis 17.4mil - which shows it's not just some completely normal thing to have that many views. There's a massive stigma on here, but there's nothing you can do when only porn has it's industry sources seen as unreliable. It's a ridiculous standard and not surprising for a field dominated by women, it just sucks that gay/trans porn performers are even worse off, because they don't get the attention sometimes hetero performers do and rely purely on industry sources and as such have it worse on here. GuzzyG (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the fact she was reliably sourced to a gender studies scholar as "one of the most successful porn stars of the decade" which was conveniently skipped over and not addressed. How do we judge notability if a actual scholar of a related field mentions someone as the top performer?" We can't expect front page NYT coverage of a porn star because it would likely lead to outrage considering the US's social conservatism - which is why she only gets featured in Canadian newspapers [14], so what else do we have if not gender studies scholars? Here's the average television actress - Andrea Elson, routine coverage due to one main role on the ALF show, sources to a routine award and nothing but routine coverage of the show. Article not likely to grow beyond a stub or start and nothing like a indepth bio is likely. Also likely never had the same level of following. This is how the average actor is covered. We just hold porn stars to a unrealistic standard that is not held site wide. Andrea Elson is not in no academic study either. GuzzyG (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion on the sources found. In particular, it would help to improve the article, citing them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ENT from the surprising Google Scholar search results:

"As of this writing, the most popular porn performers via their Instagram follower base were: Sunny Leone: 13.3 million followers, Mia Khalifa: 8.1 million followers, and Alexis Texas: 3.8 million followers."[15] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"After all, one of the most successful porn stars of the last decade, Alexis Texas, is well known for her ample buttocks" [16] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Godsy's reserach and work StarM 20:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Godsy. Alexis Texas is notable, asides from Hannah Montana. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Alexis Texas Handbook is not a book, and is not coverage that counts toward notability. IT IS A GODDAMN 18-PAGE PAMPHLET REPRINTING AN OLD VERSION OF THE ALEXIS TEXAS EN-WIKI PAGE AND SOME RELATED PAGES. It also wasn't published by Heinemann. It's a ridiculously overpriced piece of print-on-demand junk from a no-name predatory "publisher". The argument that this performer's independent RS coverage is flimsy and insubstantial is solidly made and the counterargument is obviously poorly researched and unconvincing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The most substantive source here has been challenged, throwing the !votes based on it into doubt; relisting to allow discussion of the other criteria that have been brought up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my !Vote hasn't changed, and would be curious if HW has something besides the caps lock to back up his assertion. Regardless, believe there's enough to establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Mississippi (talk • contribs) 00:01, October 14, 2020‎ (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:ENT. Mostly sourced to...industry publications. KidAd talk 01:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering the academic sources to "most popular" are continuously ignored, let me do a post on the record dissecting WP:ENT, going indepth and how "industry publications" is only used to dismiss porn and no other field (because they still have their SNGs). It's worth noting that pornography is directly responsible for Wikipedia and it's original funding Bomis [17][18]. Which is odd because its the one field held to above standards and that the porn stars whose images are responsible for wiki would probably not qualify on here, which is ironic.

Let's see how ENT relates to Alexa

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions

(Well Alexis Texas is Buttwoman was industry defining and than there's Aroused (film) which is direct documentary coverage of the subjects life and covered indepth in the Canadian newspaper i linked above. The fact that the first film was deleted by the same types who have deleted porn articles for years means nothing. Ice Cream Man (film) is a normal type of film with no indepth sources, but it's not held to the same example as a porn film. Bandz a Make Her Dance was big. Making a porn performer qualify by a rule meant for "television shows and stage performances" seems unnecessary)

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following

If 17 million wikipedia pages views with 5 million in Farsi [19] do not cross this barrier then alot of the mainstream celebrities wouldn't qualify. as i shown with Megan Thee Stallion not even being close to that [20], despite having a number one song currently.

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

(Let's not kid ourselves (by using tv actors) that every other kind of actor listed on wiki has made these same level of transformative contributions, as a rule this is super fluff and meaningless really. Benji Gregory, Andrea Elson, Terri Treas, M. C. Gainey and i can list THOUSANDs more actors that just have routine coverage related to the tv character role they played - they're not transformative, unique - just prolific. But so is Alexis at over 800 roles [21]. Why are TV actors not held to this same example?

Lets look at other fields, since tv actors could be listed for days.

Sports; Ion Cuțelaba - a MMA article only sourced to sites like "mmajunkie" "bloodyelbow" "mmafighting" "Mmanews". if this was a porn article it'd be "industry publications". Could KidAd explain how it's different? The MMA SNG makes him qualify, but why exactly is it different?

Politics; Alondra Cano extremely routine position and seat - are we supposed to list every city council member, why is the routine coverage here any different?

Music; Arcane Device There's absolutely no sources here.

Music; Mark Dinning here's a musician that's charted number one, but Billboard (magazine) is a INDUSTRY PUBLICATION. So dismissing Billboard (We don't), what else is there? Two articles relating to him passing away? That wouldn't help a porn performer, would it? Where is the indepth sources for this article? It qualifies by the SNG, but why is the treatment different?

Sports; Every single sports player who has only played one professional match and yet has a wiki.

It's clearly obvious that porn articles are held to different standards and that under the inquisition porn articles get that 50% of articles on here relating to arts/entertainment would be removed. The porn SNG should never have been removed and it's a massive disservice to Wikipedia if 5 million people who have viewed this article on english wikipedia are going to be inconvenienced by it's removal. Especially when academic sources acknowledge Texas as one of the most popular of her field. How is "industry publications" a legitmate argument when Billboard (magazine) and Rolling Stone are music industry publications at their core and are the only reason we have articles for thousands of musicians and same with Variety (magazine) and film. Why is the treatment different? This is a massive time sink and it'll be a massive hassle when someone does a biographical dictionary of pornography and they all have to be added back. Or worse, have to be rewritten months after their deletion because they died like August Ames, which acknowledged that mainstream sources DO Acknowledge porn. If the goal is to stop the tabloidness of the encyclopedia, it seems funny that the only way articles on porn stars are for certain kept is if they get death coverage like Ames, gossip stuff like Stormy Daniels or multiple reality tv appearances like Jenna Jameson, all tabloid reasons. So in keeping out porn articles for their success in the field, it only reinforces even more the tabloid nature because then they only qualify by tabloid means. Funny. GuzzyG (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heiko Gerber (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has gotten into not just acting but film directing as well. Las Vegas Weekly called her "perennially popular Alexis Texas", Texas Monthly wrote about her in Here Are Some Famous Texans You Can Hire to Deliver Video Messages for You, and fascinating info "Hannah Montana was originally named “Alexis Texas,” but because a porn star shares the same name, they were afraid children would Google the name and find the porn star instead.". Right cite (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I embarked on a research project to improve this page. Please compare (prior version), with (expanded and improved version after research project). Thank you, Right cite (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's mentioned in Maxim and has been a few semi-notable non-pornographic movies. She's got enough name recognition in the porn world alone, this other non-pornographic stuff seals the notability for me Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We should apply the same criteria to porn performers that we do to other performers. TypoBoy (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Right cite (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per many of the sources mentioned above (excluding The Alexis Texas Handbook), including coverage across a diverse range of types of media and years. — Bilorv (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Texas. Notability was established and has not been lost. Indeed, User:Right cite has shown that her notability has only increased. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be sufficient evidence of notability. (Note: I came here from the discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard.) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because PORNBIO was deprecated doesn't mean that Texas doesn't fall under WP:ANYBIO. Sure, I get that most porn awards are practically meaningless because there's so many much like the endless amount of "Game of the Year" awards given by niche entities and winning multiple times for Most Epic Ass doesn't make Texas notable. But she's been nominated four times for the AVN "Female Performer of the Year" and she's been covered in numerous other sources that have been recently added to the article. Plus I object to this idea that pornographic industry publications are "not enough" to establish notability. This has no basis in policy or fact beyond some sort of WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument that pornographic trade publications differ from music industry, game industry, movie industry, or practically any other industry publication in some way. Pornographic performers are like other performers and we should treat them the same way; not better (like PORNBIO entails) or worse (like this discussion is suggesting). Chess (talk) (please use ((ping|Chess)) on reply) 22:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article in its current includes news items, book publications, and award nominations. More than enough to establish notability for an actress. Dimadick (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ENT criterion 2. This is shown by the evidence presented by Morbidthoughts and GuzzyG. More generally, it seems there is a systemic bias against porn actors (also visible in this recent AfD). We keep deeming subjects notable because of SNG that would otherwise struggle to have even a claim of significance. I'm thinking here, for example, of football players who have come on as a sub in a single pro match with no evidence other than the match statistics (WP:NFOOTBALL). I know this line of argument tends towards WP:OTHERSTUFF but for the sake of improving the project I think the article should be kept. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per HEY (directed @ Right cite) with sources that demonstrate notability to satisfy BLP criteria. Otr500 (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Wikipedia is not censored. Other stuff is reportedly not a good argument at AFD yet is offered almost daily. Repeatedly rehashing that "Wikipedia" is biased towards porn (or "systemic bias against porn actors" - with a non-convincing link) is an indirect form of casting aspersions that in these individual discussions gives the appearance that "if" someone does not agree they are guilty by association.

I do not have an issue with the listing of accomplishments that are part of a bio, but scene awards do not advance notability when the source is not deemed independent. I did not even know there were so may ways to present an ass award, Best Ass (Fan's Choice), Hottest Ass (Fan Award), Best Butt (Fan Choice), Most Epic Ass (Fan Award) or the comparable Favorite Bottom, Hottest Bottom. I am against all trade industry type only notability criteria so not specifically biased to one in particular.

My stating here (my "plug" in this discussion) that the inundation of "almost all porn articles" with the same external links, 1)- IMDb, 2)- Internet Adult Film Database, 3)- Adult Film Database, regardless if they offer anything according to the guidelines (WP:ELBLP, WP:ELMIN) or WP:NOT, as a way to add corporate "communication strategies" or site promotion, has no bearing on the notability of this article. We should really take these discussions where they belong, like the talk page, relevant policy page, that particular editor the comments might be referring to, or the next new essay someone is itching to write.

It should be noted that Armond Rizzo (the example of bias listed above) does not even have an external link section. The "add these links to every related article" fan club must have missed it. Otr500 (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That is an ecellent keep rationale @GuzzyG:. scope_creep^Talk 12:16, 26 October 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cruze Cup[edit]

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

I dont think this article is notable, it is completely unsourced and reads like an advertisement Eopsid (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Related to Chevrolet Cruze#Motorsport but class just for the one make of car. No indication that this class is notable. Nigej (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found this source [22] but nothing else. No evidence of notability Spiderone 19:04, 14 October 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) Naleksuh (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphiokarabomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon

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

This title is too gibberish, as Google search does not bring anything up as the default result, possibly as WP:G1. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we could merge this somewhere, perhaps to a list of longest words or to whatever work originated its use. BD2412 T 18:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - the subject of the article is clearly notable (longest Greek word, appears in Guinness World Records per the article) but there seems to be a technical restriction preventing the article appearing under the Greek name. I'm not sure what that restriction is, but this is a reasonable way to deal with it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the nominator has not advanced a valid argument for deletion. Perhaps the article should be renamed but that's a matter for WP:RM, not AFD. Spicy (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Yes, a very long name with some sourcing difficulty, but otherwise is completely notable. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Difficult to search for, as it kills Google due to length and transliteration errors, but appears to have gotten some scholarly attention. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for reasons cited by User:Ivanvector and User:Foxnpichu. WP:Not paper and WP:Preserve 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm This is me thinking on this as an encyclopedic topic for the english encyclopedia. But also deferring to and respecting the consensus. Lightburst (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be willing to listen to a decently thought-on deletion rationale on this. This, however, is not a proper deletion rationale (clearly not G1, not a great attempt at WP:BEFORE, given that the Google search system is known to get overloaded by long strings), and should probably be closed fairly quickly. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hog Farm: See below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The rationale is bad, but I am not seeing sources that suggest the topic is notable, outside of it being in the Guiness book of records. But most Guiness records don't need separata articles, just inclusion on some list. But considering the flood of speedy keeps above, this may be a trainwreck (depends on whether the discussion closer reads the arguments, because they are not particularly impressive either). I suggest this is speedy closed and renominated to discuss the subject's notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotrus. Normally I would vote to redirect, but who would ever type this? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Longest_words#Greek, where this subject is already covered in appropriate^{^ha!!} length. Reyk _YO! 09:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sort of. Trying a web search on a descriptive phrase that the search engine can digest (Aristophanes long word would do) will throw up a very large number of pages where this word is mentioned, typically as a curiosity – the ones I've checked neither provide in-depth treatment nor are particularly reliable (think mentalfloss), but there's lots of them. Are they enough to establish notability? Don't know, probably not. But if you consider that a sizeable chunk of this long-ish Wikipedia article is about the various translations of this word into English, that the Classical play that the word appears in has been translated into at least dozens of languages, and that translating this in each of those instances would have been a challenge, the sort of challenge that translators like to write about, then it appears likely there should be decent literature on the topic out there, for those who know where to look. Regardless, the question now is not whether to keep, but where to keep: in a separate article, or as a section of another one. Apart from the largely theoretical question of stand-alone notability, the practicalities of merging don't look promising. Longest words is a long list that can reasonably only accommodate a mention of this long word rather than any other sort of content about it. Assemblywomen#Longest word is a better target, but if the whole of the article were merged there, the end result would appear to be placing undue emphasis on that word. And paring down before merging isn't much of an option either, as almost all of the content is essential – what the word means and how it translates into English, and that appears long only because the topic is a word that is long. All in all, keeping it as it is seems like the lesser evil here. – Uanfala (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, another source, The Classical Journal. Right cite (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the more I thought about it the more it seems WP:TRIVIA and not even trivia that I can pronounce or use. This is the English encyclopedia - I remind myself. Clarityfiend probably has the most succinct rationale Normally I would vote to redirect, but who would ever type this?. With roughly 4100 views since January I could be wrong. Lightburst (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG based on above.★Trekker (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above (especially Uanfala). The topic is a notable piece of etymological history. An inconvenient title is not a reason to delete something. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 15:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the sources above and the outcome of the previous discussion, since that time not a single thing has changed that would suggest it is less notable than it was. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Seventyfiveyears this is yet another in a long line of deletion nominations you've made (at least at RfD) where you've completely failed to do a basic WP:BEFORE prior to nomination. I very strongly urge you to read and understand that page, and the other policies and guidelines you have been pointed to multiple times before nominating any other pages for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep: not a bad article just need a translator or just a little correction and rename. view,Tbiw (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — tried saying it out & it sounded like a spell for evoking a demon, but nonetheless, it is definitely notable & it possesses encyclopedic value & it wouldn’t hurt the encyclopedic if the article is retained. Celestina007 (talk) 02:08, 16 October 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. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lost (Cher Lloyd song)[edit]

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

Although this single charted, I do not think it has received enough significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources to support an independent article. I believe the coverage is rather minimal and not enough to be considered significant. For that reason, I believe it fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 02:17, 3 October 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, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-04 ✍️ create

Keep: The song has received some coverage. I also found some reliable sources about the song: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] and [28]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message, but I have issues with half of these sources. I would not consider CelebMix to be a reliable source, and there was a WP:RSN discussion (here) with a consensus that it is not reliable. It is discouraged to use the Daily Mail on Wikipedia per this so that is not usable. The Universal Music Group source is a primary source since that company released the single. Notability should be established by third-party coverage. I am uncertain about Spettacolo as I have never seen that site before. However, three of the six sources provided are not usable for Wikipedia and I still fail to see a convincing argument there is significant coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Song charted and was mentioned in media above and in [29][30] would therefore pass WP:NSONG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorAB (talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I am still uncertain if there is enough significant coverage, but since there seems to be a growing consensus for keep, I will respect that, and I would like to withdraw this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 20:27, 18 October 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Panozzo[edit]

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

I think she fails WP:NACTOR, my WP:BEFORE google search only really had the wiki and articles sourcing the wiki. I dont think she had significant roles in the Australian series listed. There are no sources, and can't find any Investigatory (talk) 03:31, 17 September 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 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting notability guidelines for an actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NACTOR. Two main cast roles in notable TV series satisfies that one. She is also a stage actress appearing in reviewed shows such as this. 02:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffbeerforme (talk • contribs)
Keep per Duffbeerforme. Deus et lex (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wouldn't call her being a gym owner that's a friend of someone in a show a "main role." That aside, she played in the TV series Carla Cametti PD. Which only had six episodes and then was canceled. Whatever her role in the show was, considering it's short run it would be a massive stretch to call it a "notable TV" series. Other then those two shows, she's only had minor guest appearances. Which I don't think makes her pass WP:NACTOR. Nor does her appearing in some reviewed stage shows. Notability is not inherited and there needs to be multiple in-depth reliable sources about her, not things she might have briefly appeared in. Which seems to be all there is and in an extremely small amount on top of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - your comment doesn't make any sense. The article doesn't say she is a gym owner that is a friend of someone in a main show? She was a main cast actor in some TV shows as well as a stage actor. Deus et lex (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The above !vote is full of lies and misunderstandings. "Carla Cametti PD. Which only had six episodes and then was canceled." Bullshit. Carla Cametti PD was from the very start a mini series. [31] It ran it's full length. It was not cancelled. Plus notability is not determined by the length of a shows run. "I wouldn't call her being a gym owner that's a friend of someone in a show a "main role." What like Ray Donovan (gym co owner and friend of multiple someones)? Your personals judgement. "Other then those two shows, she's only had minor guest appearances." Bullshit. She was one of two co leads in Wedlocked. A third significant role in a notable TV series. She was also a regular in Richmond Hill (TV series). A fourth? [32] She was also a co lead in Black & White & Sex. A significant role in a film. The above commentary about plays betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about notability. Whats the short version of what makes something notable? Coverage in independent reliable sources. What makes a stage show notable? The same thing. So in short if a stage show gets multiple reviews it is notable. Therefore significant roles in these shows is more evidence of satisfying NACTOR which she easily passes. Other significant roles in notable productions Varda Che Bruta...Poretta (Look How Ugly She is...Poor Thing) [33] [34] (only actor, clearly a significant role. and she wrote it), The Gods of Strangers [35], Popular Front [36] [37]. For additional info one can visit the National Library of Australia and look through this. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I was basing my comment about the show being canceled on the fact that the "miniseries" was called "season 1." Which insinuated to me that maybe they were planning more. Otherwise, I know why they would make the distinction. Many mini-series' have multiple seasons and get canceled half way through their run anyway though. So your whole "it didn't get canceled because it was a mini-series" thing is obviously bullshit (your words). Second, I don't know who Ray Donovan is and I don't really give a shit (again your words) anyway, because WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid AfD argument. The fact is she was a gym owner who was a friend of the main character. Period. I don't think that would qualify as a "main role." If you do cool. I don't give a shit (again, your words). What makes something a "main role" is 100% based on opinion and nothing else. So, your right it's "my opinion" and I never claimed otherwise. Just like it's "your opinion" that it is one or that her roles were "significant." As far as the stage show thing goes, not everyone who is in the stage show is notable just because they were in it and the show is notable, and there's zero evidence that her role in it was "significant." Again, that's totally based on my personal opinion though and I never claimed otherwise. Your free to disagree. I could really give a fuck. This AfD likely isn't going to hinge on our opinions anyway. Which is totally a good thing. Especially when it comes to yours. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make up quotes that people didn't write. Just like you made up facts to support your argument. Don't know who Ray Donovan is? You could try look it up. It makes a joke of your suggestion that that being a gym owner and a friend means that the role can't be main. Carla? What says "season 1". You made up the cancelled claim based on that? rolls eyes. "What makes something a "main role" is 100% based on opinion and nothing else." Bullshit. Read reviews, read summaries, read commentary and base it on that. "there's zero evidence that her role in it was "significant."" How about her role in Varda Che Bruta...Poretta then. Got any comment on Wedlocked, Richmond Hill and Black & White & Sex or are you ignoring them? "This AfD likely isn't going to hinge on our opinions anyway." What,is the closer going to ignore all of the comments made in the afd? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She was in the main cast of Wedlocked, Richmond Hill, Carla Cametti PD and Bed of Roses. This passes notability standards. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:29, 13 October 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NetLink Trust[edit]

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. A before search only shows me hits in user generated sources Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was considering AfDing this myself but then I saw that it appears to be WP:LISTED as SGX: CJLU

. May also be a subsidiary of Singtel (it apparently was as of 2017), in which case a merge is possible. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search on 'NetLink Trust' may not turn up anything significant as this Trust was established in 2013 to buy out its predecessor, OpenNet. But for all intent and purposes, both are one and the same in terms of their company objectives and goals, which is to build and maintain Singapore's national-wide fibre backbone. There is significant coverage of either entity on national level. That being said, this article can be further expanded (possibly retitled as well to 'Next-gen national broadband network (Singapore)') with various information such as the motivations for building up such a network; issues faced during implementation as OpenNet, be it regulatory issues or installation issues; questions on diversity and resilience of national networks (re: Singtel#Bukit_Panjang_Exchange_fire); alternatives to NetLink Trust's network .
- On motivations of developing national fibre network: http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/stocktaking/docs/activities/1291981845/Towards%20a%20Next%20Generation%20Connected%20Nation_Singapore.pdf https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4d0fd3e2-1d2f-405b-b4b6-e1707282afa0 https://www.telecompaper.com/news/singapore-to-implement-next-generation-broadband-networks--510387
- On issues of rolling out the network: https://www.zdnet.com/article/opennet-fined-s750k-for-wiring-and-connecting-users-too-slowly/ https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ida-fines-netlink-trust-s450000-failing-meet-service-standards https://www.mci.gov.sg/pressroom/news-and-stories/pressroom/2012/9/mcis-response-to-pq-on-ngnbn-installation-by-opennet?page=82_6
- On the resilience of physical communications infrastructure in Singapore: https://www.mci.gov.sg/pressroom/news-and-stories/pressroom/2013/11/mcis-response-to-pq-on-the-fire-at-the-singtel-bukit-panjang-exchange https://www.telecomasia.net/content/singtel-exchange-fire-sparks-outages?src=related https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/record-s6m-fine-singtel-over-bukit-panjang-fire
- On establishing diversity and resilience of fibre networks in Singapore: https://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/sp-telecom-to-build-alternative-fibre-network-with-intelligence https://www.straitstimes.com/tech/sp-telecom-to-build-alternative-fibre-network – robertsky (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An extraction from your comment above reads A search on 'NetLink Trust' may not turn up anything significant, and you are !voting to keep an article that doesn’t turn up anything significant thus failing to satisfy WP:ORG? Furthermore, what you just did by listing references in a disorderly manner is definitely intentionally disruptive, adjust that. Celestina007 (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: NetLink Trust may not turn up anything significant since majority of the work, and thus majority of the coverage, was done under its predecessor, OpenNet. You are deliberately focusing on one part of my response. Like I said, NetLink Trust and OpenNet for all intents and purposes are the same company, and should be considered as such. I vote for keep on basis of the bolded words in the previous statement. What may seems insignificant company to a non-Singapore based editor is significant to a Singapore based editor, given that this company is Singapore-based in nature, and focuses primarily on Singapore's national infrastructure with no or little international coverage. As for the sources above, if it seems disruptive to you, my apologies, but I do not believe so. It is in sequence to my response above, nonetheless I will reorganise it, hopefully sufficiently. – robertsky (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per robertsky. Adding on past issues as OpenNet - [38], [39] (Note - The company, tasked to build the country’s national fibre optic network, had failed to connect up users fast enough, according to new standards set by the government regulator in January 2013.) and as NLT - [40], [41]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanothersgwikieditor (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is listed and covered by many analysts. I can't access the analyst reports but there are many of them. Analyst reports meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP and I am satisfied to assume that at least two of these reports provide Independent Content and in-depth analysis. Topic meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A significant organisation for Singapore. Rathfelder (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per robertsky. --SalmanZ (talk) 13:36, 17 October 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) Pamzeis (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommie Moore[edit]

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

There don't seem to be sources which actually discuss Tommie or Tomiwitta Moore, only passing mentions as part of a cast (or a one-line announcement of her engagement). Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR (her role in Beggar's Holiday was not a 'significant role'). Fram (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are three sources in Google Books (searching for her as Tomiwitta Moore) that interest me:
- Black Entertainers in African American Newspaper Articles: An annotated bibliography of the Chicago defender, the Afro-American (Baltimore), the Los Angeles sentinel, and the New York Amsterdam news, 1910-1950 By Charlene B. Regester
- A Guide to Magazine Articles, Newspaper Articles, and Books Concerning More Than 15,000 Black Individuals and Groups · Volumes 1-2 By Mary Mace Spradling · 1980
- Brown Sugar: Over One Hundred Years of America's Black Female Superstars By Donald Bogle · 2007

I'll see where I might find them. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now. I've added some content to the article and hope to find more. At least one of those books is at a local library, but I don't know if their reference area is open at this time due to COVID. This will take me a few days to sort out. To the closer: Please, if it looks like a delete, extend it a week so I can have a chance of improving it. Thank you.
Keep meets the notability criteria for actors having had significant roles in several notable productions. Excellent work by DiamondRemley39 greatly improving on the content and sourcing of the entry. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to elaborate which are these "significant roles in several notable productions"? Her role in the Green-Eyed Blonde, a rather obscure film, seems to be her most significant role, and even there she is a supporting actor more than a lead. None of her other roles seem to fit the NACTOR requirement? Fram (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't speak for FloridaArmy, but I can address some of this. Playing Claudia in Claudia is significant. NACTOR doesn't call for lead actor. A review of that film states that no one really is the "lead" in that film and her performance is commented on. A film's obscurity is not only irrelevant in a discussion (see WP:OBTOP), it's also subjective. Will keep looking for more coverage that should make her notability clearer. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, playing Claudia in a touring production of Claudia (play) isn't significant if that tour isn't significant. Being the Claudia of the 1941 premiere, yes, or the Claudia of Claudia (1943 film) as well probably. But plays get staged again and again with different actors and in different locations all the time, and being the lead in one of these productions is not an indication of notability. This "Claudia" performance is so notable that it gets a small announcement at the bottom of page 57,and Tommie Moore gets this: "Leads are Tommie Moore, who has acted in films on the Coast, and Harrel Tillman, film actor and band vocalist." A role which gets you half of one sentence is not the kind of role which makes you meet WP:NACTOR. Even her role in Green-Eyed Blonde gets "Other standouts are Tommie Moore, Beverly Long and Linda Plowman". Again, this is all the attention she gets in that article in Variety. That's a very passing mention, not the stuff NACTOR is about. Fram (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Direct me to a guideline that says the tour has to be of a certain level of significance for it to count for an actor's notability. What would that even mean? Most professional tours are of significance in the history of the production of the play. What matters is the coverage. Significance is subjective, but many would say that a tour of Claudia with an all-black cast in 1946 that received coverage is "significant". How thoroughly did you review the sources? Did you read the article titled, "Tommie Moore, Actress and Model, Leaves on Tour of "Claudia" for Negro Drama Gp."? That's not a passing mention. Regarding her work in Green-Eyed Blonde, the text of the review calling her out as a good (or bad) performer should not be mischaracterized as a passing mention. It would amount to a namecheck on a cast list. This was more than that and it demonstrates that she had a decently sized role in the film. Again, more coming when I can get my hands on some books. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (emphasis mine). The 1946 tour / reprise of Claudia is not a notable stage performance. It gets some routine announcements at the time, and that's it. So her role as Claudia is a significant role in a non-notable production of a notable play. Fram (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        We will have to agree to disagree on the significance of a black cast tour of Claudia in the 1940s. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Found citation for coverage: "Movie features Blossoming star: Tommie Moore Gets 'Gratifying Role in Film Story of Modern Correction School'." Ebony 13 (November 1957): 93-96. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether we end up agreeing or disagreeing, you are doing an admirable job of looking for and finding sources. Fram (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. It seems clear that Moore received coverage, especially as a Black actress playing roles originally performed by white actresses. There's a point where the hair-splitting over sources does not benefit the encyclopedia anymore, and it's time to drop the stick. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:25, 13 October 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Kumar Anjan[edit]

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

Doesn't qualify for WP:NPOL. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - viewing google results, I'd say he passes WP:GNG, with plenty of coverage in national and state-level media. --Soman (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please mention with reference to support your claim. Most search result shows only comments mentioned by him which does not make a politician notable. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as User:Soman. Nom needs to spell out in more detail what s/he thinks the problem is. Ingratis (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, fails WP:NPOL. Never held any public office.. -Hatchens (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - WP:NPOL does indeed say that elected national politicians can be presumed to be notable, but it doesn't say that those who aren't elected, automatically aren't notable. This man's notability rests not only on his participation in elections but on his position as national secretary of a national political party, to which the tickbox of elected / not elected doesn't apply. So "fails WP:NPOL" is a slightly irrelevant statement: what matters is whether he meets the GNG, which nom has not touched on, and I'm inclined to think that he does.Ingratis (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Party officials are not automatically notable, exception is the leader of any national party (in case of CPI, its National General Secretary, not just any National Secretary). -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not automatically unnotable either... Ingratis (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ingratis, nice point. - Hatchens (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General Secretary of All India Kisan Sabha alone makes him pass WP:GNG, apart from his regular participation in farmers movements throughout last 2 decades ChunnuBhai (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All India Kisan Sabha is the farmers wing of the Communist Party of India itself. Similar deletion of leader of party subsidiary has taken place recently. (example :see) -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the subject that you quote failed WP:GNG. the current subject passes WP:GNG, even his having contracted COVID has been covered by multiple sources.ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass WP:GNG. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Paases WP:GNG very easily using a simple google search. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "significant media coverage on the subject", all the Google search result are just his comments and media bites. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A number of the references in the article are just WP:BOMBARDMENT. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability should not be judged on the reference in the article at present, but rather the potential references available. --Soman (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found any significant reliable potential reference focused on the subject myself. I think those potential references should be added in this discussion to recognise the notability of the subject. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is zero indication that any of the sources are significant in-depth coverage of the person himself rather than being comments from him about other things. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article in Times of India on Anjan contracting COVID, more coverage in media on Anjan contracting COVID, article mentioning controversies involving Anjan, article on Sunny Leone's rebuttal to Anjan's comments on her condom campaign [42], Article in Mumbai Mirror with biographic details on Anjan, 15+ pages of biography on Anjan in this book, from p. 133 onwards ("Public Life of Atul Kumar Anjan : Known for his frank and forthright views and opinions , while the world often applauds , at times his own people get hurt and turn against him , though to appreciate him later . He belongs to an illustrious family..."), appears in google books already in 1970s as student leader ("Shri Atul Kumar Anjan, Vicepresident, U.P. State, AISF said that friendship between India and the Soviet Union proved to be a real..."), article discussion Anjan's role in leadership struggles in the party. etc, etc. I think we can easily say that there is coverage about Anjan in third party sources, not just a lot of articles were Anjan is commenting on "other things". --Soman (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes GNG with significant coverage in several published, independent sources. The coverage in The Janata Enigma and Times of India satisfies the requirement. WP:NPOL, contrary to what has been suggested, is not relevant as explained by Ingratis. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Useful to have analysis of the sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG, significant press coverage. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:02, 15 October 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. Fenix down (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Averii Jacques[edit]

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

Only reliable sources found in a WP:BEFORE search were [43] and [44] so there is no evidence that WP:GNG is met. Spiderone 17:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is currently no clear guidelines to judge the notability of referees, so I'll do some WP:WAXing here relative to WP:NFOOTBALL. I'd want more activity in international competitions so as to qualify for something that I would consider comparable to NFOOTBALL. There is also no sign that he meets WP:BASIC. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 11:20, 17 October 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 in the way of sourcing to write an article. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Breathe 2[edit]

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

This film does not satisfy film notability guidelines, and probably will not satisfy them until the film is released. There is a common misunderstanding of film notability guidelines that films are notable when principal photography is completed. The full guideline, and in particular the guideline on future films, states that films are not notable until principal photography is completed, but that between the completion of production and release, they are seldom notable, and are only notable if production itself has been notable. This film is not an exception to the rule that unreleased films are seldom notable. It will be notable when it has been released and reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has coverage in reliable sources already and has been filmed. No need to waste peoples time just to be a bureaucratic rule stickler.★Trekker (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources were collected that state the filming start date of mid-August 2020, shooting in areas around Belgrade, Serbia. Filming wrapped on October 6, 2020. There has also been a change of directors during pre-production from Alvarez to Sayagues. There is enough information on the development and filming on the film to qualify for WP:NFF.Cardei012597 (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been filmed, and there's plenty of coverage on it in reliable sources. I agree that this nom is a waste of time. - DoubleCross (‡) 00:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cally Henderson Tyrol[edit]

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

I am unable to find substantive analytical coverage of this character in independent reliable sources. All the available coverage is plot detail. The previous AfDs were largely procedural closures as a result of a mass nomination, and there's nothing there that establishes notability for specific cases. Hence, delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My search, including for -Henderson, also failed to find anything that's not a plot summary/mention in passing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Topic fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. Without real world information from reliable sources, this does not need to exist. TTN (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor character who never attracted enough reception to meet the WP:GNG or WP:PLOT. Not opposed to covering her somewhere else in the context of another character. Jontesta (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Minor character without enough attention to satisfy WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no significant coverage of the character. Seems to be missing from List of Battlestar Galactica characters and might merit a brief inclusion there. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:43, 20 October 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. Fenix down (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isidore Assiene-Ambassa[edit]

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

The best things I could find in a WP:BEFORE search were this [45], which does not appear to be an independent source and this [46], which is a YouTube video. I do not believe that there is potential for this referee to pass WP:GNG and warrant an article. Spiderone 17:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable football referee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 15 October 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 Battlestar Galactica characters#Other Characters. Currently this character is not mentioned at the redirect destination, I will try to create a short description there so that the redirect makes sense, I hope someone will review and expand. ST47 (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel T. Anders[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A somewhat hesitant nomination, because there's tantalizing hints of this character meeting GNG, but after a fairly detailed search I have only been able to find one independent source providing substantive analysis, rather than plot detail, about Anders (here). That source is pretty inaccessible, content-wise, and likely ought to be treated at Cylon (Battlestar Galactica). The previous AfDs were largely procedural closures as a result of a mass nomination, and there's nothing there that establishes notability for specific cases. Therefore, delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The current article is very bad (pure plot summary). But I don't understand the comment "That source is pretty inaccessible, content-wise, and likely ought to be treated at Cylon (Battlestar Galactica)." The cited source is pretty good, with some analysis interposed with plot summary. There is also a two page essayish and rambling treatment of him in [47], not sure if the book is even reliable, seems like fancrut bookified. There may be something in [48] but I only get a snippet view. Interesting sentence: "Their only regret is that we didn ' t have a chapter devoted exclusively to the aesthetic value of Samuel T . Anders" . Anyway, did you search for his name without the T? I did and I also found [49], which seemst to again discuss this character on 2+ pages, and goes way beyond the plot summary (feminization, etc.). I think that there is enough in sources here that someone who cares abot these themes could write a good section about reception/analysis. I will also note that there are several GScholar works that mention this character, through most seem to be in passing, but again, if anyone cares, maybe there is a paragraph of analysis hidden somewhere among that dozen or so GScholar hits. Still, given the decent coverage in two books that goes beyond plot summary or a sentnece or two, with each yielding a page+ content about him, I think he is notable (although that plot summary masquarading as an article is almost TNT-able...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean only that the material has to do with gender and cyborgs, and could be handled at our page about the cylons. The "unauthorized guide" source I give no weight to; I'm come across it before, and it's pure plot summary, so far as I can tell. The passing mention, too, is not something I can give much weight to; "we could cover Anders but chose not to" is not a substitute for detailed coverage. this source I have similar concerns with as the first; it's more a discussion of gender among "hybrids" than it is an analysis of Anders; I'm willing to be persuaded, though. I'm surprised I didn't find it, I definitely did a search without the "T". Vanamonde (Talk) 15:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I'd say redirecting to a relevant character list and exploring the available sources from there would be the best. If they can only produce a paragraph of text, then it'd be better spent to improve the list. If it turns out they add a lot of weight, then the article can be brought back at that time. TTN (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters#Other Characters would appear most appropriate in this instance since they are mentioned there. If an article is created for a real person by that name, we can always move the redirect. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will go with Redirect. The article currently has 2565 words of "readable prose" supported by one reference that is a question/answer interview with the Executive producer covering what appears to be a partial paragraph in the "Revelation" section. It has been rumored that "Wikipedia does not publish WP:original research". The only possible way to check where the content (currently in the article) came from would be to look at theBattlestar Wiki in the "External links". That, however, is not an acceptable source, likely not acceptable as an external link, and if a source is to be used as a reference it should not be from a link in the "External links" section anyway. There may be acceptable "sources out there" (somewhere) but if content can't be verified it should not be in an article. The bottom line is: To be acceptable as a stand alone article it would pretty much have to be chopped to a very thin stub with more than one supporting source. Just adding references, or stating they are "out there" does not solve the issue of OR. This would mean the article title should be redirected. Someday someone may choose to create an acceptable sourced article. It should be noted that the character is portrayed by a living person so the article falls under WP:BLP which states, This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. Otr500 (talk) 18:43, 20 October 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. The argument that there is essentially one source (the interview), and all the citations are reheats and derivatives of that source, has not been successfully refuted and WP:BIO1E wins through.

As with all my deletion closures, I have considered it carefully before closing and am satisfied with my closure. I will not be changing it in response to talk page requests. If you feel this is incorrect, you may proceed directly to Wikipedia:Deletion review and all requirements to notify me are waived. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shittymorph[edit]

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

Other than CNET the rest of the sources about this person are "feel good" puff pieces (a la "Bored Panda" variety) and no meaningful in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: one cnet profile is not enough to build a biography on, and none of the other sources add anything. (The sources about reddit testing tipping in particular do nothing for notability, they are beyond trivial passing mentions; piling eight different versions of the same press release into the article doesn't help because 8 times 0 is 0. Sportskeeda is pretty clearly not an RS.) --JBL (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have to agree with TheOther in thinking that the shittymorph interview has enough WP:RS coverage, as pointed out, because despite the lack of biography details (relying on a single source), we have enough notability to warrant a page. The other RS mentions (The Verge, Endgadget, SFist) qualify him as a secondary subject and therefore they can't be called trivial. This is especially relevant considering nineteen ninety eight when the undertaker threw mankind off hеll in a cell, and plummeted sixteen feet through an announcer's table. 2405:201:3001:D85A:416A:CA48:FD4B:2426 (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- haha - you got us. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alright, I’m skeptical of the idea that a user or commenter on any platform can become notable for their comments. I can’t imagine why reliable sources would offer significant coverage of such a person. But... here they did. Contrary to the above, I read the sources listed in the article here to offer sufficient coverage of this person to permit the drafting of an article, and don’t think that they can be dismissed as “puff pieces.” (And even if they were, significant puff coverage in reliable puff sources still creates notability.) Given that reliable sources believe this person to be sufficiently interesting and notable to write about him, I don’t see an argument for us not having an article under the general notability guidelines. Like I said, that FEELS weird, but... you know, that’s where the notability guidelines take us here, so I’m gonna roll with it. (And someone’s got to !vote here by including the copypasta, but I’m not the one to do it.)— TheOther Bob 19:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheOtherBob: There is definitely one reliable source with significant coverage; what's the second one? --JBL (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I count two articles just in CNET, as well as one in Medium, that I think would easily meet the standards. (I can’t add those easily on mobile, but Google will turn them up easily.) I also view the multiple articles discussing the tipping policy as contributing to notability, though I realize those are closer calls; when you’ve got a lot of coverage, the fact that any individual article is short or primarily on a related but separate topic doesn’t bother me. So, weird as it may be, this looks like sufficient coverage. - TheOther Bob 21:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medium is not a reliable source. Praxidicae (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. But we actually don’t have to debate that, because there’s plenty else out there. - TheOther Bob 20:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not a reliable source in this context, ever. Praxidicae (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is too. Cheers! - TheOther Bob 21:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOtherBob: That's, like, cute, I guess, but this is a thing about which there is an answer. --JBL (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of tendentious nonsense is why people think poorly of Wikipedia... I said it didn’t matter, and in this case you’re probably right that it doesn’t count, but you guys just can’t drop it. So, fine, since you won’t, you can go back and re-read what you linked me to — which says, and I quote, “unless the author is a subject matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions.” In other words, like I said, sometimes it is, sometimes it’s not. Christ, you guys crack me up. Are we done now, or do you want to ping me again with this silly stuff? - TheOther Bob 22:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saying coverage is '"feel good" puff pieces' is POV and honestly doesn't actually matter even if it were true. Person passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV/NPOV are content policies. There's nothing that says you have to use neutral language in an AFD nomination, and that's exactly what these contributor sourced pieces are. Praxidicae (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is responsible for them adding the tip feature to Reddit. https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/28/18244901/reddit-tipping-feature-test-user-shittymorph-money Notable achievement that got coverage. https://www.cnet.com/news/reddit-celeb-gets-wwe-care-package-on-hell-in-a-cell-anniversary/ covers him, and then CNET gives him a rather long article dedicated to him at https://www.cnet.com/news/reddit-memes-hell-in-a-cell/ Plenty of Google news results to sort through. Dream Focus 20:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is utterly false. An admin decided to make this user the focus of their beta test for one new feature, but he is not "responsible" for them developing this feature. As if anyone responsible for a website's routine actions is automatically notable anyway. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoops, misread it. He was deemed the one to test it out on. As for why Reddit decided shittymorph deserved some free cash, an admin explained that they were a longtime fan of his work Anyway, notable for coverage he got in CNET. Dream Focus 21:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god Delete delete delete I use Reddit too and there are a lot of anonymous users known within the site for posting a lot, this is absurd. It is certainly notable for the Reddit article that they have added a new feature, but this user is just a meme, and coverage is puff pieces about memes or passing mentions. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - There are two interesting things here - that the meme keeps the match fresh in people's memories, and that Reddit implemented a tipping feature. Therefore, I merged some of this relevant content to Reddit#Other features and a new section I created called Hell in a Cell#In popular culture. I'm a bit torn which should be the redirect though. My initial thinking is to send the redirect to the Hell in a Cell content, since Chris' initial notability was established by his meme, not the tipping. If the tipping takes off and coverage expands listing him as the first beneficiary, I could be persuaded to change this opinion. Until then, it's a bit WP:TOOSOON to make Reddit the redirect. Cheers! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like my attempt to salvage the info by merging it in the Hell in a Cell article was reverted by Mr. Hell in a Cell as being irrelevant. [[50]] He must not want the real world to intrude in the make believe world of wrestling. So there's another inadvertent vote against Shittymorph's notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the user is well known enough to get non-trivial RS like CNET. We cannot dismiss the WP:N of this person even if we want to. Lightburst (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst you'd have a point perhaps if that piece were written by their editorial staff and not a contributor. Praxidicae (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that the editorial board of a reliable source have written the article. - TheOther Bob 22:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He means a staff writer, not an outside contributor. Forbes has "Forbes Contributors" who are often outside writers with business relationships with the companies they write about, lessening the impartiality and thus the reliability of the pieces. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Forbes that sort of thing can be a problem, totally agree. But this author is someone with 5,257 articles on CNET on a wide range of topics, apparently focusing primarily on NASA, so it’d be pretty remarkable if she were biased. - TheOther Bob 23:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Bare notability without an encyclopedic value per se. Celestina007 (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with the sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm seeing lots of opinions here, but not RS that justify a WP page about the subject. The tipping articles merit inclusion in the Reddit page, perhaps even a whole section, but not an article about the Reddit user used in the tipping experiment. This seems at best WP:ONEEVENT. Jmill1806 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources cited do not show that the person is notable. (t · c) buidhe 00:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of sources within the context of Reddit developing an entire new feature around this particular individual. Right cite (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of sources with 0 in-depth coverage of him. --JBL (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Completly false.★Trekker (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one is borderline but the arguments for deletion appear more cogent. Yes, the articles in CNET constitute significant coverage in a reliable and independent source. WP:BASIC calls for multiple sources of this kind. It may be thought that the host of sources about his participation in the beta testing are enough to satisfy this. I don't think so: they all have largely the same content and are clearly not intellectually independent of each other (which is also called for in WP:BASIC). They also don't meet the bar for significant coverage. In general, the abundance of sources on this one aspect makes me think the article could also fall under WP:ONEEVENT. To sum up: the subject fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fail to see why this doesn't clearly qualify as WP:ONEEVENT at best. Nobody has even made a case for significant coverage in reliable/independent sources other than for Shittymorph's role as the test user for a Reddit feature. Why not just include the information about Shittmorph in the appropriate section of the Reddit page? Jmill1806 (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Already done. See Reddit#Other features. I also tried to add it to Hell in a Cell and was reverted by a WP:OWNer. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, that means the /Shittymorph article can be safely deleted. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with Modussiccandi. Reyk _YO! 08:18, 23 October 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. Nfitz comment by their own admission doesn't support GNG, rather it seems to cement the view that the individual has received passing mention in match reports bit nothing of any real substance. Fenix down (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington Success[edit]

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

During a WP:BEFORE search I really struggled to find anything other than the usual databases, which merely list him as a referee. The only mention in a newspaper appears to be this [51], which is painfully brief. He does not appear to have ever been notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Spiderone 16:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable football referee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm concerned by this nomination, User:Spiderone. What kind of BEFORE check did you do for this referee from the previous century? In a very quick Proquest search, I find ProQuest 433015888, an 1996 newspaper article showing that he refereed in the 1996 A-League, a 1997 article ProQuest 247528437 about the 1997 USISL A-League, and also 1993 articles like ProQuest 243283778 saying that he was also the referee for the famous Canadian Canada men's national soccer team#1990s 2-1 victory over El Salvador in the final round of the 1994 FIFA World Cup qualification. Elsewhere I find a report he refereed in the final round of the 1992 CONCACAF Men's Olympic Qualifying Championship. Meanwhile, I also failed to find ANY Antiguan media sources from that time period to even check! Nfitz (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources focus on him as an individual. A referee is not notable just for being name checked in match reports for matches that they have officiated. Spiderone 08:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the comment, rather than an opinion, User:Spiderone. But the question was, given there are easy to find newspaper articles, and the very unique name, but you didn't find them. How did you do the Before search? I'm particularly concerned given that I've not located any Caribbean archives - and I fear that this may be an example of WP:BIAS and WP:RECENTISM. Nfitz (talk) 19:34, 19 October 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1996–97 FK Vardar season[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS Spiderone 08:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 09:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Top club from a professional league, plenty of sources. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you direct me to reliable sources covering this topic in depth? Spiderone 11:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Дневник, Вечер, Нова Македонија, спорт... 1996 and 1997. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should move these articles to the draft space while a user works on trying to get the content from Nova Makedonija to build this article into something that might pass GNG? In its current state, it's way off. Spiderone 18:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well notability guideline clearly states that "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" and that "if it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I beg to differ and I don't believe that such sources exist. Your argument reminds me of the essay WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES Spiderone 22:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you clearly know nothing about our football. Claiming that there no sources for Vardar in Macedonia is like claiming I do not know... there are no sources for Real Madrid in Spain. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can quote AfD itself here If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles. If you believe the article topic is valid and encyclopedic, and it lacks only references and other minor changes to survive, you may request help in the task by listing the article on the rescue list in accordance with instructions given at WP:RSL Spiderone 14:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vardar are the most popular football club in North Macedonia, it would be stunning if this season failed WP:GNG, but it's also going to be difficult to find internet sources for this season. SportingFlyer T·C 12:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: claims of sources existing, they could be offline, but more specific comment is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've left a comment on the talk page of User:Jolicnikola asking if they can prove that these articles meet GNG through sources Spiderone 16:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolicnikola:, if you are aware of any sources that show this season can meet WP:GNG, please share with us. Spiderone 07:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination falsely claims that NSEASONS isn't met. Not only is this a team in a top professional league, it's a top team in the top tier, and played in the 1996–97 UEFA Cup (the predecessor competition to the UEFA Europa League this season. Referencing should be improved - but that's not a deletion criteria. Nfitz (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Playing continental football does not make a season notable. Dougal18 (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW applies. Numerous experienced editors have weighed in with keep !votes and there is a clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allen_Varney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Allen Varney

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Danihan (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable per WP:Bio Danihan (talk) 15:32, 12 October 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 October 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the existing article cites multiple, independent Reliable Sources and therefore meets WP:NBIO and the WP:GNG. Varney made extensive contributions to Paranoia (role-playing game), notably as author and line editor, and the game received industry-leading recognition during his tenure, and was reviewed extensively - this is a clear pass for WP:NAUTHOR points 3 and 4. I am not sure how much WP:BEFORE the nominator did, but it looks like a spurious nom. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions

Keep, significant game designer and author who has received 3rd party coverage on himself and his work.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nomination does not address the reliable sources currently cited in the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments, as the independent reliable sources cited indicates WP:GNG is met to establish WP:N. BOZ (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per above comments, this has many independent secondary sources from RS about his life and work. Guinness323 (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Look at the "what links here" for his page. The article on Varney doesn't cover his contributions to Car Wars, for example. He's a designer of multiple notable game products, covered in multiple non-trivial news sources. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noteworthy game designer, article already has good sourcing. Right cite (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV - based on a look at the sources, there are two respectable newspaper articles about him from NV and TX. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 14 October 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eghe Nimose[edit]

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

Autobiographical spam article of a non notable musician who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER or any known notability criteria & is using the encyclopedia for the sole purpose of promoting themselves/their music career. A before search turns up empty. All awards won by the individual are very much non notable. Celestina007 (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. There's no evidence of anything that would pass the criteria listed at WP:MUSICBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, subject satisfies not notable criteria for encyclopedic inclusion. Em-mustapha 04:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sourcing is terrible. Zero evidence he passes based on WP:MUSICBIO. We have decided repeatedly that producers are run of the mill. A notable person in Nigeria would get on a major TV show or a review in The Guardian. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go-Kan-Ryu[edit]

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

I will pretext this with declaring share of interest that I have some affiliation with Go-Kan-Ryu, also known by its acronym "GKR". It is not a "style" of karate itself, but a club/school that is influenced by traditional styles. Having said that, even I'm willing to suggest that the club is not notable enough for it to exist on Wikipedia. -- Tytrox (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete- most of the citations fail WP:IRS and the remaining 2 are non-substantial passing mentions. I would agree with the nom. Cabrils (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no significant coverage of GKR itself in any independent reliable source. Passing mentions in local articles about students are not sufficient to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur. Not enough to go off of here in terms of sourcing to pass WP:GNG at this time. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:51, 20 October 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) Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny the Terrible[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tiny the Terrible

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

It looks like this was made by a single purpose account that was also used to make articles about the Tiny the Terrible documentary A Man Among Giants and its director Rod Webber and has only edited articles about those topics. Take a look at its edits. This supposedly well known wrestler has no major coverage outside of Boston, MA publications The Boston Globe and The Boston Herald. He has never been the subject of a national publication, let alone an international one. This attempted politician has never won an election, and even though the article calls him a "former WWE pro-wrestler," his professional wrestling career has never included a full-time run in a major company like WWE. Hundreds of thousands of people have appeared as extras on WWE TV and this is just one of those people. This person does not meet wikipedia's Notability standards and also seems to violate wikipedia's rules to not be written by a subject close to the article. Coffeeman619 (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ENT and WP:SPORTSPERSON. The bit about his run for Mayor is unimportant. However he has RS and has made an impact in Wrestling and starred in a notable film. Lightburst (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What makes the film notable? It has no coverage outside of Boston and Hoboken. And an impact in wrestling? He's never had a run with any major company in his entire career. Wrestling is different from general sports in that a one-time appearance in WWE doesn't constitute notability. This autobiographical article or article written by someone connected to the topic at best does not describe how this person has made any remotely substantial influence in pro wrestling, where people have sometimes 10 or more year runs in major companies and this person had a one night run. Your comment states that he "has made an impact in Wrestling" but does not describe any such impact and indicates that he starred in "a notable film" when no sources indicate that the film received coverage outside of the Northeast, and the article on the film seems to have been written by someone close to the topic. Furthermore, as far as I'm concerned the only sources the film has are Boston sources. The Hoboken International Film Festival web site hypes that you can submit coverage at https://www.hobokeninternationalfilmfestival.com/submit-films, so that's probably what happened with this film. In addition to all that, one of the Hoboken International Film Festival links (source 5, http://www.fest21.com/en/blog/todd/special_to_the_hoboken_film_festival_2008_a_man_among_giants) is a broken link. And the second link (https://web.archive.org/web/20110712213426/http://www.hobokeninternationalfilmfestival.com/2008schedule.php) is a mere schedule for airing of films. If we listed on wikipedia that was aired at a film festival, wikipedia would have way too many articles. Your article makes three assumptions - 1. that "he has RS," 2. that he "has made an impact in Wrestling," and 3. that he has "starred in a notable film." None of those three assumptions seem to hold water.Coffeeman619 (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not convinced by any of the delete arguments. He was covered by major mainstream outlets, it really does not matter that they were in the New England market. Many notable wrestlers never appeared in WWF/E at all, so whether or not he was ever employed full time by them is irrelevant. The article does need improvement but that doesn't warrant deletion.LM2000 (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough to have a documentary made about him. The New York times did mention him in the lead of one of their articles https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/27/us/democrats-city-scene-mass-protests-traffic-jams-none-so-far-region-relieved.html The Boston coverage is significant. http://archive.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2009/07/09/8216a_man_among_giants8217_examines_an_attention_seeker8217s_last_hurrah/ I fixed the search link at the top of the AFD, it formerly linking to "pagename" instead of "Tiny the Terrible". Dream Focus 22:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per The Rise & Fall of ECW: Extreme Championship Wrestling -- "pretty well-known". And other sources as well, as mentioned, above. Right cite (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, SNOW: After a flurry of new edits to improve this article, the bar of notability has clearly been reached. At this point, per WP:SNOW, this should be closed as Speedy Keep. Normal Op (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is more than enough coverage on him to establish WP:BASIC. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 04:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, SNOW for reasons cited by User:Normal Op and User:Walwal20. Article is not what it was when nominated for Deletion. WP:HEY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's only one source here, A Man Among Giants, that seems to pass WP:GNG and the more specific guidelines. The rest are trivial, brief mentions, primary, Etc. Etc. WP:HEY is an essay and WP:BASIC doesn't apply because the coverage is in no way "significant." Ultimately, the bar for AfDs isn't that the article be changed, it's that the article be changed to meet the notability guidelines. Throwing more trivial sources at an article, like was done here, doesn't do that. Someone should be able to find another in-depth source. Otherwise, this is a clear delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the sources currently in the article, I added a Feb 2000 syndicated national article from Cox News Service: "No small matter: WWF and WCW shun midget wrestling, but it thrives in smaller wrestling organizations". — Toughpigs (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best headline ever! Normal Op (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just spit out my tequila. lol Lightburst (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG, if not other guidelines. Glee^anon 18:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ratu Sikumbang[edit]

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

Non notable actress, fails WP:SINGER and WP:NACTOR. Wikipedia states WP:BLP articles "must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability", and hence this source fails to satisfy WP:GNG. A before search returns with Amazon, Facebook, Pinterest, Soundcloud and other similar sites. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail WP:GNG; my BEFORE search turned up the same unreliable sources as mentioned by the nominator. I've tried to look at the Indonesian/Malay versions of this article and none of them seem to give us any guidance on sources either. Can't see an alternative to deletion. Spiderone 15:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I ran into the same thing in my BEFORE search. Appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:SINGER at this point in time. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK1 TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14-18, the musical[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a stage musical, it doesn't need to pass WP:NFILM. Boneymau (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the dutch article is referenced and is of a good article standard. A WP:before search would have noticed that. 94.175.6.205 (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added some sources from the Dutch article. Most of the sources are in Flemish and Dutch, and it's likely that someone who speaks those languages would be able to find better sources than I did, but I think that this passes notability standards. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:51, 12 October 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 Moot. Deleted under WP:G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prosenjit72. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pandit Prosenjit Poddar[edit]

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

Was deleted through CSD very recently, only to quickly be recreated. Don't have access to see the deleted copy, but if memory serves me correctly, this is very similar to that which was deleted. Simply an advertisement for this person. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: This is simply a repost of the deleted version and should be deleted as WP:G4. The draft was also speedy-deleted twice as unambiguous promotion [52].--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I wasn't around in 2004 but I joined in 2005 and read enough dramaboards to say that it was a very different place. It was certainly a more homogeneous community which allowed for us to have fun. Then we made the mistake of doing a good enough job on the whole be one of the world's largest websites and, despite our protests to the contrary, become one of the leading reference sources in the English speaking world.^{[citation needed]} Our community is more diverse which carries certain advantages (we're only pretty systemically biased instead of being incredibly systemically biased!) but also means that we've had to "grow up". Rather than fun, in 2020 we have April Fools "jokes" that are so amusing that they find a way to cause multiple noticeboard discussions and RfCs. So instead we're left with policies and guidelines like "No Original Research" (an oldie but a goodie). The discussion here seems to suggest that the WP:Let whatever Floquenbeam likes exist guideline might have some support but alas that isn't the discussion I'm closing. So instead we end up with a delete consensus. However, there is clearly enough support for the tomfoolery of days gone by that it could certainly exist in someone's userspace (or perhaps even project space) and I would have to burnish the "no fun stick" that I was given instead of a mop to anyone suggesting it be WP:G4 (abbreviations impenetrable to outsides? Just as good in 2020 as 2005). Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded"

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

Not only does this blatantly fail WP:LISTN (there are no sources discussing these works as a group), but the prose introduction to the list is just WP:OR trying to explain a common theme to the works. This is a pretty clear example of WP:NOTDIR #6 and shouldn't be here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, well. It's an old joke from 2004, showcasing my primitive sense of humour and my interest in obscure 17th-century literature. Feel free to delete. Bishonen | tålk 15:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: This list appears to be a collection of random rubbish. Furthermore, the original author has admitted that it was made as a joke. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:LISTN although fairly amusing and remarkable that this has lasted so long!! Spiderone 17:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - old joke, fails LISTN, this could probably be speedied. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would it be meaningful to turn this into a disambiguation page called Virtue Rewarded? TompaDompa (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, because every entry would only be a WP:PTM. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the rationales of most of those who commented at the previous two AFD's (which for some reason ~~aren't~~ weren't mentioned here (they are now)). I wish it was still 2004, when all the quirkiness hadn't been relentlessly sucked out of the place, and a bunch of smart and witty and clever people (I even saw Geogre's name in the history, which brought a brief smile to my face) could create something for the sheer joy of creating it. I know, I know, even Bish has never supported keeping it. I know, I know, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOFUNALLOWED and lots of other bluelinks. I know, I know, we are an ever so much more serious encyclopedia than we were back then. I know, I know, this is going to get deleted this time. But when sociologists of the future study the rapid loss of fun and joy and personality in Wikipedia between around 2007 and 2020, I hope they note that, although the drop in support for this article between the AFD of 2007 and this one was stark, there was still one lone holdout even in darkest 2020. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN, bah! humbug! Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to group things merely by shared name. That is exactly what this list is doing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given by Floquenbeam and in the previous deletion discussions. It is a sad but typical comment on the way that Wikipedia has developed over the years that, whereas in 2006 and 2007 there was strong support for keeping, now there is scarcely any. JBW (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick Google search finds some supporting citations for the content in the lede (such as this), and there may be more out there. The page seems like a worthwhile collection of pages/titles that are related to a small, but still existent phenomenon. Interesting read and I don't think the encyclopedia adds any value from its removal. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cited article only seems to be talking about one specific work, not any sort of phenomenon as a whole or the application of the subtitle to multiple works. The mere existence of this list, not to mention the prose content of the article, violates WP:NOR, one of the core policies of Wikipedia. The nomination for the second AFD explained it much better:
the items on this list have no relationship to one another beyond the author's happening to pick the same two words as a subtitle. They are drawn from multiple styles of "books" (including fiction books, textbooks, plays, poems, "erotic fiction" and anthologies) from across disparate centuries, have dissimilar protagonists, do not share the same "virtue" and the virtue does not garner the same reward. This list tells us nothing about the fiction or the real world. Keep arguments from the first AFD are incredibly poor, including among others such unpersuasive reasons as "interesting" and "well-written."
In other words, there is no phenomenon. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOT. (t · c) buidhe 10:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Floquenbeam. This article is a delight. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and actually there's a decent shot at WP:LISTN per [53], which suggests that the subtitle has been treated as a distinct phenomenon in its own right. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re the original comment, that's a nice sentiment and all, but delightful OR is still OR; it doesn't really get a pass based on its delightfulness. And re the followup, this doesn't really help on its own. Which of these is discussing these as a group? The couple I checked from the first page sure don't seem to be. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"virtue+rewarded"+subtitle and "virtue+rewarded"+subtitle look like a good start to me. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a tantalizing search result that I can't seem to get full access to in [54] which begins "The prevalence of subtitles such as "Virtue Rewarded," "Virtue Lost," and the like speaks to this." I know it sounds like I'm obfuscating, but I'm really not—Google just won't let me view that part. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Err, this link is for Writing the Self, Creating Community: German Women Authors and the Literary Sphere, 1750-1850, and I'm not sure where you're reading that; it's not in the blurb, and a full-text search for "virtue rewarded" only returns one match, which simply lists the title with no further discussion. Likewise, "subtitles" only gives one unrelated match, and "virtue lost" gives no matches. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons cited by User:Floquenbeam. And the reasons cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" and here Easily meets WP:GNG. WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: Please disregard; this is retaliatory and offers absolutely nothing to the discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: Please disregard the personal attack by Decacon Vorbis; this is retaliatory and offers absolutely nothing to the discussion. It is an Ad homimen irrelevancy. Indeed, it is part of an ongoing larger pattern and sheds light on all of his comments at this AFD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out what light this sheds on my other comments here, where I've advanced policy-based reasons to delete this article and have responded to claims of sources. I eagerly await your civil response. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Res ipsa loquitor I am eagerly awaiting your apology. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tu quoque. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)s[reply]
The arguments at the prior discussions do in fact add a lot to this discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? Which one(s) in particular? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your justification for serial deletion discussions ("light bulb" notability, which is miraculously lost — it turns off and on from time to time) is silly. The article's history is to the contrary. But magic mutability is the core sentiment of your actions. But I do not expect you to understand, and this note is not addressed to you. Peace. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This fails WP:LISTN as there are no sources that actually discuss this grouping or phenomenon as a set. There are certainly some sources on some of the individual pieces mentioned here, but there are none that discuss the concept as a whole, making the grouping complete WP:OR. Even the creator of the article has admitted as such here. All of the keep votes here are referencing Floquenbeam's comment, but that comment does not cite any relevant policy nor provide any relevant sources, and is an entirely an WP:ILIKEIT comment, making these completely invalid arguments. They also keep citing the previous two discussions, but looking at those, none of the Keep votes in either of them actually provided any relevant arguments either - they're a mixture of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT posts, none of which actually provide evidence that there are sources that would help this pass WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly non-notable works that happen to share the the same two words but are otherwise unrelated. No sources discuss this phrase itself or the list as a whole, with the lead reading as original research. Reywas92^Talk 19:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Floquenbeam's wistful look back to a time when editors had a "kinder gentler machine gun hand". But more importantly this is a legitimate list per WP:LISTN Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. The list certainly provides information and has some navigation usefulness. Also as AleatoryPonderings has shown us: [55], is a distinct phenomenon in its own right. Lightburst (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This list has no navigational or informational purpose with which to justify a keep argument. Your link is a search result one might get from Google Books when starting to look for sources. However, as noted above, nothing in those search results actually discusses the topic of the list. A "wistful look back" is also not a valid reason to keep something (even the article creator admitted it was a joke; and for the record, it was a long time ago, and I certainly don't think anyone should hold this against them either). But come on, this is an obvious delete that not even the staunchest inclusionist can justify keeping. It's time to nip this one in the bud and move on. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deacon Vorbis: In the bud? I created it in 2004! Bishonen | tålk 14:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The title appeals to me in light of 2020s extreme Virtue signalling. We disagree on several subjects but I tend to defend list articles for WP:LISTN's defined purposes. I appreciate the insight from Floq - an administrator who knows where the bones are buried. Lightburst (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Floquenbeam, this is actually quite encyclopedic and relevant to the topic of English literature. Right cite (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam didn't offer a valid reason to keep. It was a case of an old hand waxing nostalgic about the good ol' days while quietly acknowledging that this is still a delete. Bald statements like this don't counter the simple lack of any sources on this topic, as has been pointed out numerous times already. Nor the violation of WP:NOR. Please have a read through WP:ATA. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-sensical list trying to make things seem related somehow that aren't. Plus, it's not a list of things "subtitle Virtue Rewarded" anyway. It's a list of things with the phrase "Virtue Rewarded" in them, which is completely different, or things with "Virtue Rewarded" in the title, but were isn't a subtitle. So, the list is junk that's just a repository of random, un-connected articles. Plus, all the stuf about who the virtuous person is etc. etc. is OR and better suited to an essay. The important thing to take into account with the quote above from WP:LISTN is where it says "recognizable." While this may (extremely questionably) aid in navigation Etc. Etc., it does not do so in a recognizable or meaningful way. There's nothing that connects any of the linked articles besides (randomly) sharing two meaningless words their titles. It that way, it's similar in usefulness or informational relevance to List_of_works_with_the_word_"the"_in_the_title (or subtitle). Which wouldn't be useful or relevant at all. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have said that the list may not aid navigation in a "meaningful way" - but that is for the users to decide. You have also stated that this may (extremely questionably) aid in navigation Etc. Etc. - I submit that is why we have the LISTN guideline - if the list aids navigation or provides information for any users it is useful and we should WP:PRESERVE it. We are WP:NOTPAPER so we have room for any item which may be useful to our readers. Lightburst (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second, aren't the you the one that said "The list certainly provides information and has some navigation usefulness" in your keep comment? So, it's cool for you to vote keep because you think it navigationally useful, but when I vote delete because I think it isn't, then suddenly it's up to the users to decide if it aids in navigation or not?..Right...I've seen some pretty transparently ridiculous and one sided arguments, but that one has to take the cake.--Adamant1 (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you always this aggressive in AfD discussions, Adamant1? The article (which somebody wrote, you know (namely me)) is "nonsensical" and "junk" according to you, and now other people's arguments are "transparently ridiculous". Have you noticed that most other people who give their opinion here do so quite politely? Please don't lower the tone. Bishonen | tålk 09:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: I'm sorry your offended by my feedback that aspects of "your" article don't make sense and are meaningless. Maybe learn from it and create a better article next time. Although, probably you shouldn't if you can't even handle pretty milk toast comments like mine. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is (at least) the second time an admin has asked you to tone down your snark in AfD discussions in less than a month. Responding to that with more snark is neither a good look nor productive. TompaDompa (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) @Bishonen: That response gives you a pretty good idea of the answer to your question, "Are you always this aggressive in AfD discussions?". Phil Bridger (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I probably would have acted more congenial about it. Except that the admin comment was in relation to a comment I made to Lightburst. Who has made multiple snarky, personal, and uncalled for comments toward me in the last couple of days. So has another user. I'm not going to be "polite" just for sake of it while other people are repeatedly disparaging me without so much as a peep about their behavior from anyone. Let alone an admin. There's plenty of examples of me acting perfectly civil in AfDs though and generally I'm pretty "polite." Except when other people aren't toward me. That aside, I'm not a huge fan of the whole "polite" way Bishonen framed their comment. There's plenty of people on here who "polite", but still act pretty wretchedly. A matter fact, I reported someone to the admin board like a month ago who made some pretty harsh comments about me and I was pretty roundly told by everyone that kind of thing is just par for the course of Wikipedia and that I should stop being so overly sensitive and just deal with it. So, sorry if I tend to disregard complaints about how I act and not take them seriously. Maybe I would if bad faithed acting people like Lightburst and others who constantly make everything personal were put in their place for it, or if I wasn't told by a bunch of people to stop being an over sensitive complainer and just suck it up when I complained about them. I'm sorry you guys can't handle it from me, when you expect everyone else just deal with it and it's dished out constantly by almost everyone. Really. Especially Lightburst. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you take off the battle-dress for a bit? People who looked at the complaint that you made saw that it was without foundation, in that the complained-about editor had done nothing more than disagree with you, but you seem to think that any disagreement with you is a personal attack and that any personal attack that you make is just a disagreement. Just go on an anger-management course or something rather than carry on with this complete lack of self-awareness. As an example, you appear to have completely failed to notice that Bishonen said early in this discussion that she was happy for this to be deleted, but you seem to prefer a battleground to a civilised discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She was the one that took offense to me saying parts of the article didn't make sense instead of assuming good faith. So, if anything she was the one making this a battleground. Otherwise, feel free to show me anywhere in the guideline that says "nonsense" or "garbage" are derogatory, insulting words or whatever. Same goes for Lightburst and his worthless, none constructive comment calling out my vote when it was based on the same exact logic as his. How exactly was his comment constructive or AGF? I don't think every disagreement is a personal attack. There are specific people, including Lightburst, who repeatedly act in bad faith and attack me for no reason though and I do think people are personally attacking me when they are. He and ToughPigs were just doing it in another AfD and in an RfD. Other people even said they were, but sure, ignore that and make this all about me. I don't need anger management classes for being assertive with someone who was just attacking me in other places or because I'm a tad defensive with people who I've had longstanding issues with and who refuse to leave me alone. Thanks though. Your assertion that I do seems a lot like victim blaming to me. Especially since there's tons of discussions, not involve those specific people, where I get attacked and just leave it alone. Someone attacks me (or just disagrees with me) in almost every AfD I do or am involved in. Obviously I'm not arguing with people in 99% of the AfDs I'm involved with though. Obviously your suffering from self selection bias. BTW, something I've always found a bit ironic about the AGF guideline is that no one can invoke it without not AGF themselves. I think that same idea is applicable to here and your whole thing. Especially the part about me making this a battle ground. You should ask yourself who messaged who here and which "original" comments where constructive and which weren't. All I did was vote and say the article didn't make sense. That's it. I'm not the one making this a battle ground. Hell, look at the discussion below this one. There's disagreements and arguements everywhere. It's laughable to single me out. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at the risk of also being BLUDGEONED, I found the list useful and informative, and possibly most important it includes items that don’t yet, or may ever earn, their own articles. We’re here to share knowledge and this does exactly that. I’ll look for more references as well. Glee^anon 12:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No !vote here. Just a comment. I wonder if those turning out to keep this also show up if it had been created yesterday by some random redlinked newbie? For some, sure (this one has drawn some representatives of the always-keep, as well as the always-delete crowds), but some of the comments here have the feel of "it's old and fun, and it was written by a friend." We regularly jump on top of new editors for creating pages that aren't up to snuff, pulling them into this confusing, legalistic process, and people don't make the "it's delightful so IAR" sort of arguments on their behalf. So I don't know if I'm saying "let's not be so cabally" or "remember the newbies" ... maybe I'll just conclude by titling this comment "Noblesse oblige, or Virtue Rewarded". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a remarkable amount of ABF crammed into one paragraph. As far as I can tell "...and it was written by a friend" applies only to me. If you can find one instance of me ever attacking a newbie for writing something remotely similar, point it out. If you can't, perhaps dial the smug superiority down about 3 notches. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree with the characterization of "remarkable amount of ABF" and it wasn't directed only at you (if nothing else, your rationale was "per"ed many times). And I certainly didn't intend to imply that anyone here has attacked newbies. Nearly the opposite: that to the extent this IAR keep attitude is a positive thing, it would be nice to spread it around evenly to include newbies. That doesn't mean you're mean to newbies; it means I only see this kind of argument when the nomination statement happens to have appeared on a much-liked/much-watched userpage (perhaps a fairer way to frame it than "written by a friend"). It's a double-standard, but perhaps not one that can be helped, since it's not like we can expect anyone to participate in every AfD or watch every user page. I just have mixed feelings when an article that would have no chance if created by a new user is kept because it was created by a veteran (again, that's not an accusation of bad faith necessarily, but likely a natural consequence of who's watching the user page). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Funny, delightful, but alas seems to me to fail WP:LISTN and WP:NOR. Double sharp (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found about two dozen Google Scholar hits which may be exactly what sourcing is needed. I’m technically challenged for chasing them down further but perhaps those with better sleuthing skills can check them out? Glee^anon 19:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ILIKEIT. No, it probably doesn't qualify by usual modern Wikipedia standards, and it certainly shouldn't be used as a precedent it's okay to create new spinoff articles for whatever bizarre subtitle tracking some editor wants to do. That said, it's harmless and quirky on its own and seems to be a rare case of "original research" producing something interesting, so keep as a small shrine to the Wikipedia of 2004 that was going to be an Internet-curated database of everything. A small amount of such silliness on Wikipedia is fine and harmless; the dose makes the poison, etc. SnowFire (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per usual when anything on Wikipedia is designed for those seeking a higher education, there are those who want to consign it to the trash can. This article is very encyclopaedic, useful and interesting. Giano (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subtitle is a notable historical phenomenon. Does need a source. List derives from that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fun but not policy compliant, per everyone above. ListN & NOR. Perhaps as a user essay. PackMecEng (talk) 02:14, 20 October 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) 04:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lincolnshire County Cricket League[edit]

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

An amateur cricket competition that may not pass WP:GNG.

[56] - local news source discussing cancellation of the league due to pandemic
[57] - local paper briefly discussing the league resuming
[58] - gets a couple of mentions in the Grimsby Telegraph here but nothing substantial
[59] - mentioned once
[60] - mentioned once
[61] - mentioned once

Whilst there is some coverage I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV. Unless offline sources exist, I'm not sure there's much chance of this passing GNG. Happy to hear your views on this one. Spiderone 11:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local amateur league of only local interest and coverage generally limited to routine sports reports in local media. If there were a Cricket in Lincolnshire article it would warrant a mention there, and possibly a redirect, but such articles do not exist. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Second tier league in an English county. Lincolnshire Premier League says "The league has just one division, and is fed by the Lincolnshire County Cricket League which covers the north of the county, and the South Lincolnshire and Border League which covers the south of the county." Local interest only. Nigej (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Second tier local league, not enough coverage, besides it fails WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not of a high enough level to be notable enough to justify having an article. Dunarc (talk) 22:52, 15 October 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 Speaking in tongues. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of tongues[edit]

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

Stub with claims about the existence of "supernatural" gifts?? this does not meet our standards. Acousmana (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Speaking in tongues. I can't see how this has enough coverage to warrant an article of its own. Spiderone 12:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Speaking in tongues. The reliable sources that I've found, such as this (through a university, so probably paywalled) don't really make much of a distinguishment between the speaking and the interpretation of tongues, so this isn't really a valid content fork. Merge it into the main article. Hog Farm _Bacon 13:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I could dig up a talk by Dallin H. Oaks where he spoke about a person having the spiritual blessing to be able to interpret what another was speaking, and I could dig up a few, but most sources will discuss this closely with the speaking in tongues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. For the record, this is a real belief in the Catholic, Evangelical, and Anglican traditions. In some churches, it's a big deal; in most it's an embarrassment, like exorcism. To get "received" I had to suffer through a workshop that featured a deacon in my church confessing to having this ability. However, it's not something, based on available sourcese, that gains significant coverage. All that being said, I agree with the proposal by Johnpacklambert to merge this to Glossolalia. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- While this is viewed as distinct from speaking in tongues, in many cases they are paired as two behaviors done at the same time. Even in cases like Oaks mentioned above, where he sees this as being used by the Holy Spirit to translate a normal language beyond the abilities of ones training, the discourse I am thinking of where he mentions a case of this he was involved in in Bulgaria, he also mentions cases of speaking in tongues as well, so it is not a source that presents this as an independent case, and many sources will only see this occurring in the context of speaking in tongues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 15 October 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam saab[edit]

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

fails the criteria of notability, refs are either mere mentions or are primary sources Shubhi89 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shubhi89 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shubhi89 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. Refs in the article are lists of her news reporting or passing mentions. A search on Google, JSTOR, NYT and Gale did not produce sources that established notability. Z1720 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:, as per above, searching does not produce sources. WP:TOOSOON -- Whiteguru (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep she is a rising star in Australian broadcasting, receiving wide plaudits for her journalist coverage, diction, and international outlook (see Twitter commentaries). ABC News is broadcast worldwide and she is the anchor on late night news. However, she avoids or minimises her presence online and in the media, and has deleted her instagram account - suggesting there may be very good reasons for her actions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.7.11 (talk) 19:47, September 19, 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - the fact her personal online presence may be minimal is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Deus et lex (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see how it meets WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, move to correctly capitalised title Mariam Saab (delete A7 in 2014). PamD 10:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Draft:Mariam Saab exists and was declined at AfC in May 2020. PamD 10:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Borderline, but I am leaning to keep. She is a key presenter on the ABC, The Australian National News Channel (ie our equivalent of the BBC), and certainly a known figure in Australia, with experience presenting in Europe - Google seems to indicate notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~keep per Deathlibrarian. Agree with PamD name change if kept. Deus et lex (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Someone has added much more detail on background and journalism work, including the 19-20 bushfire coverage, epic in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.7.11 (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is much improved. The draft should be deleted, as it is totally useless. --Bduke (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took another look at the sources in the article, and I am staying with my Delete vote above. None of the sources in the article give Mariam Saab significant, independant coverage as required in WP:GNG. The ABC, DailyStar, ABC National Radio, ABC Australia and France 24 articles were/are her employers, so they are not independant. The Sydney Morning Herald, UNSW Press and mei.edu do not mention Saab (or mention her in a footnote), Youtube is not a reliable source and the MarieClaire article is not significant coverage. I would be willing to reconsider if there is a significant profile on her life or career in an independant source. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third and assumed final relist, especially for continuing discussion on whether the new sources are valid for proving notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No problems at all with how this evolved. Z1720's points are not sustainable (and spells 'independent' incorrectly). ABS and SBS produce non-commercial state journalism, and were used to illustrate contributions, as were the other sources, not 'to describe personal 'notability'. How would news presenters establish notability except by presenting well? Notability here is curating material well for a huge audience in a very high profile job. Anybody in Australia would agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batterbu (talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:AfD, AfD discussions are to determine "whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies", including WP:NOTABILITY. In the comment above it states the ABC and SBS sources are "to illustrate contributions...not 'to describe personal 'notability'." I agree that the sources do not describe notability, and since they were/are both employers of hers, I do not think we can use them for notability. Contributions, although important, cannot be used by themselves to decide if we keep an article. If it was, editors could argue "keep" for a painter by posting pictures of their work from a Google Image Search.

It was asked, perhaps rhetorically, "How would news presenters establish notability except by presenting well?" In WP:JOURNALISM there are four criteria that Wikipedia uses to establish notability for journalists. It is possible that Saab might pass one of those criteria, but we must be able to WP:VERIFY that the subject is notable using WP:RELIABLESOURCES. For example, a source could say she won a prestigious award, critiques her body of work, or profiles her life. Since sources have not been posted in this discussion that describe her notability, I have decided to continue advocating for a "delete" vote. Z1720 (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm going to lean on the side of caution with this one and change my !vote to a keep. I think there are enough reliable sources that are not routine to meet the GNG criteria. Deus et lex (talk) 11:20, 15 October 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) 04:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Investcorp Ltd.[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. The company has only routine listings and passing mentions in secondary sources. M4DU7 (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. The article is largely sourced to listings and lacks in-depth coverage in secondary, reliable sources.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3 hoax. postdlf (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by PBS Kids 2[edit]

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

There is no channel called PBS Kids 2. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under either G3 or A11. Clearly does not exist. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G3. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 A kid's channel wouldn't air Family Guy or Rick & Morty. A hoax that got more exhausting as the article continued on. Nate • (chatter) 14:46, 12 October 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) 04:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Medicine (truck)[edit]

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

15 years ago this was speedy kept in a mass nomination (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandit (truck)) - but now it is the last remaining article in the series of stubs about non-notable monster trucks, all others from this nom have been deleted, and this one, citing no references outside external links, has not improved since. The article seems to fail WP:GNG and my BEFORE doesn't find any significant coverage of this vehicle outside some very niche and brief coverage of the accident it was involved in, which does not seem to suffice to make it notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Unsuitable as the subject of an encyclopedic article anyway. Nigej (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - not notable. --Sable232 (talk) 01:44, 20 October 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 Don Freeman#Selected works. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tilly Witch[edit]

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

Not finding any reviews or awards to satisfy WP:NBOOK. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Don Freeman#Selected works, where it is already listed. There's not much out there on this book outside of user reviews and very brief mentions. There is a similarly titled book named "Silly Tilly Witch" that is also coming up in searches, but it appears to be unrelated. It should be Redirected to the notable author's article though, as it is already mentioned in his bibliography there. Rorshacma (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Don Freeman#Selected works. Passing mentions in [62], [63], not seeing anything better. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is a good WP:ATD. Passing mentions that don't meet WP:SIGCOV for a stand-alone article. Suitable to be covered as part of the article about the author. Jontesta (talk) 15:25, 19 October 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. There's no clear consensus to either keep, delete or draftify. I don't think we are going to get consensus one way or the other in this discussion. Fenix down (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Star Base Football Club[edit]

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

Non-professional club, does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:FOOTYN. Would redirect to league, but no article for the league exists. Was deprodded with the rationale, "This is a football club playing in a prominent semi-professional league(Surulere Regional League) in Lagos Nigeria. I am in the process of creating an article for the league and that should be ready in a bit." If and when the article for the league is created, this could be redirected there. But again, clearly does not meet FOOTYN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- like I said before, this team plays in a recognized semi-pro league that have members who play in the National Cup in Nigeria. I am yet to finish editing the article for the league and that could be a major reason in deciding not to keep this article. I think that's not fair on editors, especially as they have to start from scratch again when the article for the league is approved. Felixdgreat (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 06:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 06:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The club has at least some coverage in national sports media in Nigeria. I haven't been able to establish what sort of level the Surulere Regional League is at though. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 11:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment they did play in the Round 32 of the Lagos FA Cup(the preliminary stages of the national cup) last season, I think that should count for something in determining notability. Felixdgreat (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tough one to work out, all I can think of, were they fans of Star Wars with a team name of Star Base! Maybe it can be put into draft space, however, I don't see anything real towards basic GNG. Govvy (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - if the claim that they have played in the prelim stages of the national cup is true, then there is potential notability here. I would suggest a move to draft space to allow editors time to prove the notability before moving it back to the main space. Spiderone 16:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think seeing as they've played in the preliminary rounds of the main national cup competition, as mentioned above, then that's enough to confer notability. On a more general note, the coverage of Nigerian football on Wikipedia is pretty poor - it's a nation of well over 200 million people and football is the main national sport, yet Category:Football clubs in Nigeria only has 89 articles in it. I don't think deleting one of those articles (where there is any sort of claim to notability) is of any help in improving that coverage. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 12:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - playing national cup, and with media coverage like this, the team is both notable (and meets FOOTYN) and meets GNG. It's very clear that football teams in Nigeria are massively underepresented here through WP:BIAS. I'm not sure why User:onel5969 isn't trying to fight systemic bias. Nfitz (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If I'm not mistaken, the national tournament in Nigeria is the Nigeria Federation Cup, which is called the AITEO Cup. The source in this article is a primary source and claims they played in something called the Lagos FA cup in the 2017/18 season. However, as per this source, which was used on the page for the 2018 Nigeria Federation Cup, Starbase did not participate in the national cup tournament that year (nor in 2017 or 2019, I checked just in case). Perhaps the Lagos FA cup is something different? Regardless, as of this point, there is no independent sourcing showing that they did play in the national tournament.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's noted above that the Lagos FA cup is one the preliminary rounds for the national cup. We don't discount UK teams, all 644 of them last year that only played in the 2019–20 FA Cup qualifying rounds, and weren't one of the 124 made it to the First Round Proper of the 2019–20 FA Cup. That's an example of systemic bias. Nfitz (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Surulere Regional League is a youth competition. Starbase should be deleted on that ground alone. The Lagos FA Cup is a separate competition that the finalists qualify for the AITEO Cup. Teams from Australia have been deleted even after playing in the FFA Cup so any accusations of bias are nonsense. Dougal18 (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "preliminary round", it's a separate tournament. A qualifying tournament. Therefore, you have to win it to qualify to enter the national tournament. Which this team clearly didn't, based on sourcing. Therefore it doesn't go to passing WP:FOOTYN.Onel5969

^{TT me} 12:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment the Lagos FA Cup is the preliminary round of the Federations Cup(Also known as Aiteo Cup for sponsorship reasons). All teams have to play the state qualifiers before they get to National level. Felixdgreat (talk)
  - Comment - No, it's a qualifying tournament to make the national tournament. Separate tournaments are not "rounds". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment In 2019, Box 2 Box FC, A team that plays in the Surulere League as Star Base defeated MFM F.C. to progress to the Federation Cup(Aiteo Cup) where they were later eliminated. You have to understand that football is very much different in Nigeria from other European countries. I don't know how a preliminary tournament that qualifies you for the national cup is classed as irrelevant. Felixdgreat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - CommentFelixdgreat, What are you talking about? Star Base never played in the Aiteo Cup, per the sources about the Aiteo Cup. As it says in 2019–20 FA Cup qualifying rounds, "32 winners from the Fourth Round Qualifying advance to the First Round Proper". This clearly indicates that all prior rounds were qualifying rounds, and therefore mean that this team doesn't meet FOOTYN.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not really a valid comparison, though. The qualifying rounds of the FA Cup are still part of the FA Cup....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly, ChrisTheDude, teams playing in the qualifying rounds of the English FA CUP have pages about them on Wiki but because this is Nigeria, preliminary rounds are now irrelevant. Felixdgreat (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. None of the comments show that it passes GNG. Nigej (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Club has some coverage but not enough. May be they meet WP:GNG in future. Kashmorwiki (talk) 09:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:54, 12 October 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. This does not preclude a merge. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Cabinet of Khayreddin Ahdab[edit]

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

The article does not meet GNG for a stand alone article. I originally merged the content with Khayreddin al-Ahdab as an ATD, but this was objected to and reverted. If someone has a better merge / redirect target please post // Timothy :: talk 05:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is about an official cabinet who governed as state for a period of time, if it should be deleted, then everyother cabitent-related aticles should be deleted or merged. The article can be expanded, we can find more sources. There is not any other article that can be merged to, neither Khayreddin al-Ahdab, because the article, although he's the head of the government, it's not about him. It's about the ministers, the president at the time, the desicions the cabinet made, the shuffle made to it, the struggle between the two blocs... Maudslayer (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an official cabinet that governed a recognized state. True it was under a protectorate and not a fully independent entity, but we have treated these as meriting articles. I do not think we should delete this one alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per my vote in the related AfD, Merge to Cabinets of Khayreddin Ahdab until the time there's enough there for a standalone, simply because that's a better result given the article's current state, but do not delete the information. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 12 October 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. This does not preclude a MERGE. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Cabinet of Khayreddin Ahdab[edit]

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

The article does not meet GNG for a stand alone article. I originally merged the content with Khayreddin al-Ahdab as an ATD, but this was objected to and reverted. If someone has a better merge / redirect target please post // Timothy :: talk 05:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We should keep the discussion at the fifth cabinet article above. Maudslayer (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as the 5th cabinet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cabinets of Khayreddin Ahdab until the time there's enough there for a standalone, simply because that's a better result given the article's current state, but do not delete the information. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 12 October 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) 04:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melita, California[edit]

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

Not listed in GNIS. Durham calls it a short-lived post office (1869-1871) in an area that would eventually become part of Oakland. Post offices are not reliable indicator of a community. No indication that there was ever a community named Melita. No other notability uncovered. Glendoremus (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's no evidence of notabillity for this entity. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG Paul H. (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was unable to find evidence that this was a notable, GEOLAND-passing, community. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Melita had a post office. Yes, I understand that other people do not agree with me that the presence of a post office fulfills WP:GEOLAND #1: "Populated, legally recognized places". However, it is not in the GNIS. I edited the article and removed the incorrect coords. Newspapers.com did not turn up anything, though I did find an obit for someone born in Melita, Sonoma County. Cxbrx (talk) 22:31, 14 October 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) 04:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maniac (truck)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PRO was removed with no helpful rationale (sad but not unusual abuse of the PROD system). Ping User:Reywas92 who pinged me in turn about this PROD recently. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think "save of the year in 2008" is really a qualifier for notability for a truck... No basis for inappropriate prod removal, with no independent sources provided or found. Reywas92^Talk 07:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems reasonably prominent in its field. For example, there's a Hot Wheels model of it and it seems easy to find coverage such as Maniac makes Hickie's dream come true. The worst case would be merger to a page such as list of monster trucks and so our policies such as WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE apply. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not have direct and indepth SIGCOV to show notability. BEFORE showed nothing that meets this and the article itself is not sourced // Timothy :: talk 07:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. We don't need articles on every monster truck. Surely it could be part of a list somewhere. Nigej (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could find only fan sites, product listings and passing mentions. The article given by Andrew above is only a passing mention, that article is about driver Trent Hickie. I don't think there's reason to merge to list of monster trucks unless the scope of that article were extended as it only has driver names, there's nothing from the article under discussion to add to the "Maniac" entry on the list. A7V2 (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Auna[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC. Best reference available is [64], and I don't think it's sufficient. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she was also apparently interviewed on an iHeartRadio show called "The Chris Top Program", but interviews don't contribute towards notability. At this time, she simply does not appear notable enough for an article per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about her aside from a Salon article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 20 October 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) Pamzeis (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snowy Shaw[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NMUSICIAN / WP:GNG. The majority of the in-depth coverage that I found was from AllMusic, with either only passing mentions in other sources or the sources were not in-depth about Snowy himself. While that is a good start, that does not satisfy the "multiple, non-trivial" part of "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC); expanded 17:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, frivolous nomination. Geschichte (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte: I have expanded the rationale. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a member of multiple notable bands, clearly satisfies WP:NMUSIC criterion 6.--Michig (talk) 19:29, 12 October 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kip Memmott[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. There are mentions of him (e.g., [65]) but nothing to suggest BASIC. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a low-profile individual with a civil service job that occasionally garners mention in local press but no in-depth coverage of his biography by non-hometown sources. In my experience it doesn’t do anyone any favors to leave such an entry up: in the absence of sufficient sources, it’s too prone to coatracking. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Innisfree987. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a low level government position that does not grant default notability and there are not enough sources to show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG very clearly. SportingFlyer T·C 22:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. An elected State auditor could be notable, but this one appears to have gotten no coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hubi Meisel[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN / WP:GNG. AllMusic does not have any reviews or a biography and merely confirms that Meisel exists. Other mentions that I have found either are passing mentions or do not go in-depth about Meisel himself, thus not satisfying the "multiple, non-trivial" part of "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC); expanded 17:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Also, the article was created by a SPA back in 2006 whose only edit was this before he disappeared into thin air. Meisel does not have a page on the German Wiki either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only one notable album. Geschichte (talk) 19:14, 16 October 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 Evergrey. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Ekdahl[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN / WP:GNG. The coverage that I found of Ekdahl appears to mostly consist of passing mentions or not in-depth about him, thus not satisfying the "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" of criterion #1 and (adapted wording from NMUSICIAN) WP:GNG. He appears to also have not have "been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles", thus not satisfying NMUSICIAN criterion #6. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC); expanded 18:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Evergrey. BD2412 T 19:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to this. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Evergrey as suggested, per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 14 October 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) 04:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Danhage[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN / WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Evergrey. BD2412 T 19:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK1 TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom S. Englund[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN / WP:GNG with no viable redirect alternative to deletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He was part of notable bands such as Redemption and Evergrey (which is notable, even though you nominated their article for deletion as well). The sourcing is problematic, and I didn't really found reliable sources (mostly interviews). He is mostly mentioned in the context of Evergrey, and that is not enough imo. But at least one of the criteria of notability is met: he is part of multiple notable bands. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Baseless nomination. Geschichte (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jari Kainulainen[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN / WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Larsson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN / WP:GNG. Does not appear to satisfy the "multiple, non-trivial" part of "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." from NMUSIC / GNG. While he did join Evergrey, taking the content at face-value it appears no works were released while he was a member and does not appear he was a "reasonably prominent" member of the group, thus failing NMUSICIAN #6 ("musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles").TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC); expanded 18:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to HammerFall. A line can be added there about his brief tenure with Evergrey between stints with HammerFall. BD2412 T 19:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nomination is baseless. Geschichte (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evergrey[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Damn! You nominated a lot of pages relating to Swedish music. Reminds me of that time when a lot of articles related to Greek music / culture were nominated (although not by you). Anyways, they do not fail WP:BAND. There are reliable sources: Metal Storm (with staff written album reviews included), Blabbermouth, Allmusic biography, Concert Review at Brave Words for instance. So they meet WP:BAND. Their albums are released on important labels - AFM Records and InsideOut Music. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK1 TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Niemann[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN / WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NMUSICIAN 6: [...] is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heiko Gerber (talk • contribs) 15:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per last (unsigned) comment. TheSandDoctor nominated lots of articles on Swedish/Finnish metal musicians/bands, in really short periods of time, with really short rationales and no evidence he even did a basic Google search. Even if the sourcing isn't great (which is a huge problem, I know), these musicians satisfy at least one part of notability: being part of multiple notable bands. He also seems to have gotten something against Evergrey since he nominated their members and the band themselves for deletion. But the Evergrey article was quickly kept because the nomination was nonsense. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostDestroyer100: I have nothing against the group and hadn't even heard of them until last night. A WP:BEFORE search was indeed done, which found very little in the way of sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG's "multiple, non-trivial" coverage in independent reliable sources requirement for the individual members or the albums. I am, however, willing to admit that in hindsight the nomination of the band's article itself was incorrect. Sourcing is everything and per WP:BLP if it isn't sourced it has to be removed. Withdrawing this nomination. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK1 for the moment. Re-nomination will depend on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonoid (band). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Niemann[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN / WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NMUSICIAN 6: [...] is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK1 (withdraw) per NMUSICIAN #6. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mats Levén[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN / WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK1 (NMUSICIAN #6) TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Vikström[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN / WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Sk1 (NMUSICIAN #6 Candlemass and Mercyful Fate) TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wead[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN / WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 12 October 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 Falconer (band). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoffer Göbel[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN / WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician. The article is no where near passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Falconer (band), not independently notable but singer of the band. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Falconer (band), anything reliably sourced would fit there, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 19 October 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 Falconer (band). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Blad[edit]

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

Lack of coverage found in a WP:BEFORE search appears to indicate that Mathias fails WP:GNG and by extension, WP:NMUSICIAN. In order to even be considered potentially notable under NMUSICIAN, at least one of twelve criteria must be met.

"subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" - BEFORE check appears to indicate a lack of non-trivial coverage in multiple different reliable publications/sources. As a comment on current sourcing present within the article (though I did look wider), the AllMusic biography is of Falconer (band) and mentions him a total of 4 times. This is hardly what a reasonable person would consider in-depth/non-trivial and evidence of independent notability.
"Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." -- based off of the album articles linked within Mathias Blad, it appears that none charted or were otherwise notable.
"Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country." -- as a logical consequence of #2, this is not met.
"Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" -- not satisfied per #1
"Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." -- potentially his one lifeline, but insufficent sourcing to write an article about him per WP:NRV and WP:NOTINHERETED. The best recommendation here would be to redirect.
"...or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." -- primarily known for Falconer (band) per article
"Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." --no evidence of this
"Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." -- not mentioned in the article or in available sourcing that I have found
"Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." -- no competitions are mentioned within the article
"Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc." -- not mentioned
"Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." -- no evidence of this
"Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network." -- no evidence of this

TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC); nomination statement expanded 03:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I say either redirect or delete....SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Falconer (band), not independently notable but singer of the band. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Falconer (band), anything reliably sourced would fit there, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:12, 19 October 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Famiglietti[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough (I'll admit his role in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines was memorable). Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes WP:NACTOR#1 Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Lightburst (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a mirror of IMDb. With minor actors IMDb often merges multiple actors into one listing, it is not a reliable source at all, and so if we have no other we should not have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources NEXIST beyond the IMdB. TV Guide, CT Post. Looks like the actor also penned a book The Divorce Party. Lightburst (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found coverage to prove he passes the general notability guideine at World News Network https://wn.com/mark_famiglietti and the Associated Press https://apnews.com/article/hollywood-los-angeles-california-archive-4ec61af330b2423f95d5ae9a1fe147b6 Dream Focus 18:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant roles [66] and good coverage among sources [67] [68]. Right cite (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If those sources constitute in-depth coverage I'll eat my hat. World News Network is a news aggregator, not a producer of content. The page presented aggregates an interview by the subject (interviews are primary sources that don't back up notability claims; it's also an interview by the producer of the film he was making at that time which doubles down on it not being independent) as well as the Wikipedia article about Famiglietti. It is offensive to the intelligence of anyone reading this discussion that Dream Focus would try to pass that off as an in-depth reliable source. TVGuide is a listing of credits, not in-depth coverage. The CTPost interview linked by Lightburst is the exact same text as the Associated Press link that Dream Focus posted, so it's one source, and it's an interview, which again, gives little credibility to a claim of notability. Finally, Lightburst knows very well that simply writing a book doesn't make one notable, so it amazes me that that's being held up as an indicator of notability. What a load of rubbish. And oh, quelle surprise - it was posted at WP:ARS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing ping to Dream Focus since I screwed up the caps first time around. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos Thanks for the confrontational ping. We do not place additional hurdles for those who pass SNG. This one easily passes WP:NACTOR#1 - you have not said how he does not. He had a significant recurring role on - Aquarius (American TV series) 8 episodes (2015) and was in Mad Men TV series as Bernie Rosenberg (2007), he was in 28 episodes of Hang Time (TV series), 8 episodes of Young Americans (TV series). He even appeared in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003). It is to his credit that he does not beat his wife or get DUIs to make the news. He passes our SNG easily. Lightburst (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you would bring up DUIs or domestic violence as the only possible ways an actor might make the news or otherwise obtain coverage. Some actors obtain media coverage by virtue of the quality of their performances. Unfortunately Mr. Famiglietti does not appear to have been one of those actors. The Basic Criteria under WP:NBIO is this: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." No one at this AfD has provided any indication that Mr. Famiglietti has been the subject of such coverage. SNGs tell us who is likely to meet the basic criteria, but do not rubber-stamp a notability claim in the absence of reliable sources: "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It's obvious that in the absence of any in-depth reliable sources, there is no policy-based reason to retain this article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to disagree. See WP:N A topic is presumed to merit an article if: it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. I am not sure how we could read this any other way. He passes the subject-specific guideline. Unless you can show he does not? Lightburst (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NBIO, as I have already quoted from the section that describes the SNGs: "Meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It's that simple. An SNG is not a guarantee of inclusion when sources do not exist. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

we had this discussion over the years. Especially in regard to Olympians - you may as well AfD about 89% of Olympian articles. I will let others weigh in as I have said enough. Lightburst (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:ANYBIO is not a subject specific guideline. It is a backdoor to basic notability. Not even close to WP:N Lightburst (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I performed some clean up and added relevant references to the article. I trimmed out unreferenced material as well. Lightburst (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clarified that none of the references added have any significant content about Famiglietti. The best of them is a two-sentence paragraph; the others are name-drops. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He had starring roles in Hollywood films, so I think that qualifies him as notable. Note that this article was entirely unsourced when it was nominated for deletion, but it does have several sources now.Funtoedit1212 (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only source that is currently in the article that supports WP:GNG is Connecticut Post. The remaining (Los Angeles Times, Us Weekly and Entertainment Weekly are passing mentions of the subject and fail "significant coverage" required. His book and its subsequent play do not seem to have helped to garner any press. Five pages of my Google search resulted in nothing of significance. Searching Google News, I found a few more passing mentions related to Spy Intervention with https://deadline.com/2016/10/comedy-the-divorce-party-gets-production-start-date-lead-cast-1201844891/ diving in a bit deeper, but not enough to count as significant coverage. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The AP story, https://apnews.com/article/hollywood-los-angeles-california-archive-4ec61af330b2423f95d5ae9a1fe147b6, is identical to the one in Connecticut Post. When I get to the writer's credentials, "Justin Papp is a staff writer. justin.papp@scni.com" and scni.com is apparently dead. It was "Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.", but it doesn't seem to be active. Perhaps another domain is associated with it. Makes even that one ref a bit more suspicious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closer note: The above editor has followed me here after warring with me and harassing me on the Rick Beato article that I have been improving. Participated in no AfDs for a month but came to ~~vote~~ !vote obstinately on this article that I worked on. Again making the same tedious edits 1 From the editor’s AfD stats it is clear that they followed me 2 Lightburst (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was following the editor because of the problems I saw at Rick Beato that have most recently included MOS:PUNCT, Wikipedia's copyright policy as shown here, and WP:OWN. With such a complete lack of understanding of MOS:CAPS, MOS:IMAGESIZE (as shown when I was reverted on this article), I won't engage further, but clearly we have a problem editor. Yes, my block log is longer, but so is my edit count. In the end, however, whether or not I followed the editor here the issue is whether or not Mark Famiglietti meets WP:N, and as I have show, the subject does not appear to. Oh, and we do not WP:VOTE, another error that Lightburst continues to make. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and I missed WP:OVERLINK and incorrect date formats! Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was following the editor.. Yeah you are. If you think Lighburst is a "problem editor" open a case at ANI. They are feeling harassed by you. See WP:HOUND: following the editor, calling them a "problem editor", continuing to push a content dispute with a litany of WP: links in an unrelated AfD page, voting angular to them right after they voted. -- GreenC 14:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Walter Görlitz Seriously, you opined on "incorrect date formats!" [exclamation in original]. And admitted to WP:Wikistalking. What is your malfunction? Whatever happened to WP:AGF WTH?

FWIW, I made all of the dates uniform using D/M/Y format. But how consequential is that? Ad hominem fallacy? And what does it have to do with the AFD?

Moreover, there was nothing preventing you from making that correction, instead of carping about it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the project and requested help and Lightburst followed me there. This article is within the scope of the musicians project, so when I see the editor messing up, and not admitting to their own stalking, I have no problems being forthright. What's preventing me from correcting things: Lightburst reverts without question any changes I've made, whether correct or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lightburst, based on the large number of supporting roles in hit TV shows and major films. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lightburst. VocalIndia (talk) 17:59, 19 October 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. We gave it time but a good argument to counter that detailed delete argument has not emerged Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turner Landing, Kentucky[edit]

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

This one gets a bit technical, but it's a locale (geography), which is defined as not community, so it doesn't pass WP:GEOLAND or WP:GEOFEAT without passing WP:GNG. Rennick's index calls it a locale, and his county history mentions a Turner, but no Turner Landing. Both the 1931 Cairo, Illinois topographic map and the 1967 Olmsted, Illinois topo have Turner Landing marked in a different, smaller font than is given to the maps' communities of Oscar, Kentucky and Olmsted, Illinois. The font is that given to schools, river landings, and other type things. So since it fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GEOFEAT, WP:GNG must be met. This is nonsubstantial coverage listing it in a series of points along the Ohio River, along with some lighthouses and shipwrecks. This is just a brief statement that a road was built to Turner's Landing. Someone had a bunch of railroad ties there. There was a road from Turner Landing to nearby Gage, Kentucky. I've found another couple hits, likewise using it as a landmark, but none of this is significant coverage of the place, just name drops. As a locale, it fails the geography SNGs, and GNG-bearing coverage is not forthcoming. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons and findings discussed and cited above. In addition, Palmer-Ball and Barron (1986) mentions a "Turner's Landing" in the Ballard County Wildlife Management Area. and the map of the Ballard County Wildlife Management Area shows a "Turner's Landing Road" in it.The above discussion and context of the occurences of "Turner's Landing" makes me think that Turner Landing is a corruption of "Turner's Landing" that likely once was an insignificant, historic steamboat stop that has been largely forgotten. Maybe it could be located using historic navigation charts of the Ohio River.

Finally, the Ballard County Chamber of Commerce web page states "Our other communities are ... Needmore, Turner Landing, Winford, ... and New York." as if there is a current community by that name. If it was not original research, I would be tempted email them and ask them does it really exist and where exactly is it located.

Reference cited: Palmer-Ball, B., and Barron, A., 1986. Western Kentucky Observations. Kentucky Warbler (Vol. 58, no. 4), pp. 75-80, Kentucky Library Research Collections Paul H. (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Paul H.: In Wikipedia, "original research" refers to you publishing in mainspace something not published by someone else first. It does not forbid the pursuit of further information. Normal Op (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think we'll need a little more than that claim to establish it as a community, even if Ballard County calls it one in that place, as the weight of the evidence still suggests a steamboat landing that doesn't quite meet GNG. There was definitely something here in the past, but it doesn't seem to rise to the bar of enwiki notability. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 12 October 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. No prejudice to an article with the same name on a different topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aan tafel[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:MILL. If this wasn't so run of the mill it would be worth saving. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redevelop Yes I don't think the TV series has the coverage we need, but the Dutch restaurant in Zaandam it picking up hits, it could be changed into the restaurant, what do you think Aymatth2. Aan tafel means "at the table" in Dutch BTW.† Encyclopædius 16:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Encyclopædius: To get the attributions right given new subject, it would probably be better to delete it first. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:20, 17 October 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 18:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

518 Media[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Speedy candidate. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Their role in US distribution of a Lynch film gets no more than a passing mention, and notability is not inherited from that or the other films which they have distibuted. I am not seeing the specific coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I saw this on today's AfD listing, and the name rang a bell. But as per other comments, above, the only coverage I can find are passing mentions about Lynch and Inland Empire and not much else. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commemt - Could we possibly Redirect this to one of their films? Foxnpichu (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Foxnpichu: Which one talks about them enough to warrant it? I don't think redirecting to a specific film would make much sense. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. I just thought it could be an alternative. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and lack of WP:SIGCOV, or redirect per above discussion. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajax is niet dood![edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG with no real redirect prospects. Not mentioned at all in Johnny Jordaan and only one (unsourced) sentence in Tante Leen. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 22:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The song existed, but all of the available sources are simply the Dutch equivalents of the usual streaming and database entries. Despite being a duet by two notable singers, I can find no evidence that it is of any interest to music historians; even in Google Books it only comes up as a basic listing in histories of Dutch pop music or football club songs from that period. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 21:57, 16 October 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Carter (politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. User:Aaronw1109 stated very succinctly in 2018, Given that he's done nothing notable, besides be the parent of a Georgia state senator, the son of a President, and a failed Senate candidate, does this article pass WP:GNG?. The answer is no. KidAd talk 23:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jimmy Carter. Children of US Presidents must pass WP:GNG or another SNG to merit inclusion. --Enos733 (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as unremarkable as it may be, I do believe his biography and status as son of Jimmy Carter warrant him to stay.--BestOnLifeform (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any specific policy to support this, or just WP:ILIKEIT? KidAd talk 04:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notablity is not hereditary Nathan811 (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, notablity is not hereditary -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Normally we would look to WP:POLOUTCOMES for a guide. But the children of U.S. presidents are like American royalty. (See William and Harry) Children of presidents get national coverage for nearly everything they do. Many above have said WP:NOTINHERITED but this candidate - by virtue of his birthright, passes WP:N with multiple reliable sources. It is hard to deny multiple articles in the New York Times and other national media. Wm335td (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Carter is not royalty of any kind. Not a policy. KidAd talk 17:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suggested on the talk page nearly 3 years ago why this article should be deleted, but forgot to AfD it myself. My reasons for voting delete are on the talk page. Same as in NOM. –Aaronw1109 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, like it or not, seems to have gotten high profile press. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the six sources listed, which are classified as "high profile press"? Which are non-trivial campaign mentions? KidAd talk 02:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources are not in the article: WP:NEXIST. Wm335td (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. KidAd talk 02:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My WP:BEFORE found many sources. I added a few from major media. In addition there are New York Times and every major news media available. Wm335td (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in addition to his senate run, he also received coverage for his discharge from the navy for smoking marijuana, as can be seen in this New York Times article from 1977: [69] This clearly assuages any BLP1E concerns and causes him to pass WP:GNG effortlessly, and if I could find this with a 30 second search, than it is just WP:COMMONSENSE that there is far more out there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New sources found by Devonian Wombat show he is probably notable Spudlace (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed senate candidates are not notable for such and we do not have enough sourcing about him otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable because of familial ties (WP:INVALIDBIO). Not notable because of unsuccessful Senatorial candidacy (WP:NPOL). A basic WP:BEFORE (hampered as it is by other people sharing the same name) turns up nothing I would characterize as substantial depth of coverage as mandated by WP:BASIC – instead, what I find is coverage of his run for Senate (i.e. the 2006 United States Senate election in Nevada), a bunch of passing mentions in articles about his father, and the above-mentioned coverage for being discharged from the Navy for smoking cannabis (the idea that this article, which was written 7 years after the fact when his father faced more scrutiny from the media and which goes into basically no depth at all, counts as substantial depth of coverage is absurd to me). I don't think the combined coverage from these sources adds up to substantial depth of coverage of the person, so I don't find any indication that he passes WP:NBIO. If we are to redirect this anywhere, I suggest 2006 United States Senate election in Nevada as the target. TompaDompa (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, He failed in the elections so he fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we're jumping to conclusions on his notability because of the hereditary element and the losing political campaign element, which aren't enough on their own, but there's plenty of WP:GNG-qualifying national coverage from the campaign, which wouldn't be enough on its own, but also other sources, including an endorsement he made for Barack Obama. As someone not quite as famous as his father, he's always going to be "the son," but he has been written about enough by secondary sources to be eligible for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 21:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Devonian Wombat, failing in an election alone can not conclusively make someone non-notable. --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 16:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Winning an election does not make one notable, and losing an election does not make one non-notable. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:12, 12 October 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 Parkwood Estate#Filming. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of films shot at Parkwood Estate[edit]

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

Completely unsourced list of films shot at a particular venue in a midsized suburban city. Most of the films appearing in the list don't have any sources to indicate that they were filmed at this location in their own articles either — I admittedly didn't comprehensively check every entry in the list, but not a single one of the entries I did spotcheck even mentioned this venue at all — and the list is also straying from its own stated premise to list television programming, including scripted series, non-fiction shows and even Christmas specials. Although the venue does have historic status, it's not so internationally prominent that a list of stuff purportedly but not verifiably filmed there would be critically important content for Wikipedia to maintain without proper sources for it. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Parkwood_Estate#Filming. Fine spinout article if too big in the main one, but shove it on over there. I'll see about finding references. Dream Focus 00:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They list all the things filmed there at https://www.parkwoodestate.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Parkwood-Movies.pdf so references are not a problem. Some notable examples perhaps in the main article, with a link to that complete list might do just as well as having it here, since it'd be always up to date. Dream Focus 00:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing something like this to the venue's own self-published website about itself does not make it properly referenced, or even noteworthy per se — to make this a notable list that we should maintain, we require the filming to be referenced to media coverage about the productions, independent of Parkwood's own self-published web presence. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valid information for the main article, so if its too large it can be spun out to a side article. Just like when an actor's filmography gets too large to fit, they put it in a side article. As for coverage https://www.looper.com/249594/why-the-mansion-in-the-boys-looks-so-familiar/ and elsewhere. Just Google for "filmed" "Parkwood Estate" -wikipedia to find more. I added references to some more sources in the article itself. Dream Focus 23:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore, we literally have articles like this for just two other buildings on the entire planet — and those two are the vastly more important Versailles and the British Museum. One of these could theoretically be compiled for practically every named building on earth, literally swamping Wikipedia with hundreds of thousands of these — so what makes Parkwood Estate so very special that it needs this when thousands upon thousands of much more important buildings don't and shouldn't have similar lists? Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No reason why others couldn't exist, as long as the list is too long to fit in the main article. Category:Films shot in the United States by city You could make list of films by city filmed in even. The fact other things don't exist yet, has nothing to do with whether this one should exist. Dream Focus 16:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Films shot in city" is not the same thing, and not subject to the same considerations, as "films shot in one specific building". And yes, there is a reason why others couldn't and shouldn't exist: because there are literally millions, possibly even billions, of buildings on earth for which such a list could potentially be compiled, and there's no value in indiscriminately keeping millions of these just because they're technically possible. To keep something like this, we need a reason why the content would be valuable to maintain, not just an argument that there's nothing that would technically prevent it. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A mention of films in the parent article might be relevant, but being the location of filming is not a threshold above WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, as you could make an list out of virtually any old location along these lines. In a cursory search I have not found anything beyond trivial mentions that talk specifically about Parkwood in relation to its use as a filming location that would be relevant to suggest it's actually a notable topic and not just a random list. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Dream Focus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankargb (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 12 October 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 Sophiya Haque. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akasa (band)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NBAND. The Guardian source in article is a one line passing mention. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable band. Currently, there are no sources in the article that establishes notability. The Guardian piece is not about the band, it's just about the vocalist (who is also an actress) passing away at a relatively young age (41). Actually it might be okay though, if there would be other reliable sources. Alone - I don't think it cuts it. I did a Google search and couldn't find anything reliable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sophiya Haque seems the obvious best outcome here. --Michig (talk) 20:00, 12 October 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omme Nishyabda Omme Yuddha[edit]

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

Only found 1 review for this film (Times of India, which is cited), but WP:NFILM says we need 2 reviews to establish notability. I did a WP:BEFORE and found no others. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as found another reliable sources review here so WP:NFILM is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Per two RS reviews, however, the Asianet review is rather short.--Ab207 (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per two reliable reviews.TamilMirchi (talk) 05:14, 17 October 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 due to lack of a quorum. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valya (singer)[edit]

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

Unable to find any sources to verify notability of this BLP, certainly language is a barrier to finding sources but the Bulgarian Wiki page is equally unsourced. J04n(talk page) 15:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine she's notable. There are some results on the web: on the fist couple of pages here I could find about ten or so news items that are primarily about her: the quality isn't great (mostly gossip or interviews), but better sources (album reviews and the like) aren't likely to be easily found on the internet, as the singer's recording career peaked in the early 2000s, when Bulgarian media hadn't yet moved online. – Uanfala (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The commenter above makes a good point about how this singer may not have online coverage, and that is unfortunate. But unless someone can deliver some reliable old-school paper sources from her country and translate them here, there is little point in having an article in either the English or Bulgarian Wikipedias. It looks like she had a long career but we need evidence that she got noticed in a significant fashion. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 02:15, 19 October 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 due to a lack of a quorum. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JD Scott[edit]

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

One of a group of articles based on this "emerging writer, who is not yet notable. Articles have been tried on a single story (now deleted), his magazine, and his book of stories. None of them are notable , singly or in combination. I thinks there's very likely to be some coi involved DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article meets the notability criteria for individuals in WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. JD Scott has articles about them in notable secondary sources, such as The Rumpus[70] and Electric Literature[71]. They have also received notable awards, such as being a Lambda Literary Fellow[72] and being included in the Best New Poets anthology. InverseHypercube (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - they had a story recently in HFR, amongst many other reputable collections and awards as noted by InverseHypercube. They were featured last year by poetry.com; they were interviewed in Apogee. There's lots of coverage. And, Roxane Gay follows them on Twitter. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 14 October 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 due to a lack of a quorum. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cushman[edit]

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

Shorts film director/producer. Not made it to the big time. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's actually a feature film director/producer, not just short films. Has made several, widely released recognizable projects. User18889 (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is true but the two films he directed made didn't really make it. They aren't well known, or well reviewed, with little attendant coverage. scope_creep^Talk

I don't fully disagree in terms of the films not being exceptionally and widely recognized movies, although in the scope of independent films they've received notable distribution and recognition, and at least the last film "The Maestro" had theatrical distribution which is more than 90% of independent films can say. I feel the director has enough notability, especially in the independent film world, to warrant inclusion. User18889 (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case, but that is only film and that's not sufficient for a BLP. It needs in-depth, independent, reliable, secondary sources for a BLP. I'm looking for somebody come up with two or three good references that show he is notable. At the moment the references in the article are not sufficient. I found one reference in the Hollywood Report but that is about that.

scope_creep^Talk 08:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's multiple references in many of the articles both on the film pages as well as his page that mention him, beyond the Hollywood Reporter, including the Los Angeles Times and Voyage LA as well as multiple others. He's notable in the independent film and literature world, which should still qualify. User18889 (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references are terrible. Lets go through them.

Goodreads. In this instance it is probably non-rs and fails WP:NOT.
Goodreads. Same as above.
Profile page. No independent.
Devilworks. Passing mention. Not in-depth.
Rotten Tomatoes. Passing mention and fails WP:NOT. Non-RS.
LA Times. Article on Xander Berkeley. Passing mention. Non-RS.
DTLA film maker awards. Adam Cushman was awarded Best Director for Restraint. Really a passing mention. Minor award. Not in-depth, secondary, or independent.
Restraint. Cast list. Non-RS.
Special events. Directed by. passing mention.Non-RS.
BSFF. Don't see him.
AFMX. Doesn't seem to be him here either.

So the first 10 refs are exceedingly poor. Junk is only way to describe them. Lots of passing mentions, cast list, minor or non-notable awards. No indication of being notable. No coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Fails WP:DIRECTOR. scope_creep^Talk 16:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree that the sources are unreliable. LA Times, Rotten Tomatoes and the awards pages and announcements are absolutely reliable. Goodreads isn't promotion, it's verification of the work. Awards announcements are as such as well; verification. BSFF shows award laurel for film (The Maestro) if you check again, as it's being referenced in the article. BSFF also mentions The Maestro, if you scroll down to 2018 winners, again as it's referencing in the article. DTLA film maker awards is an announcement, not a passing mention, as is how they're typically done. Not sure "junk" is how to describe proper, verifiable sources.User18889 (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your not addressing policy as you haven't spent a lot of time on Wikipedia. You seem to a SPA. The closing administrator has a right to ignore your comment as it doesn't address policy. Looking at your comment, it makes no sense. It is entirely subjective and doesn't follow policy. scope_creep^Talk 16:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BARE. The sources are mostly reliable, but whether you'd call the coverage significant is debatable. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable about WP:SIGCOV being questionable, although I believe there's enough interest to warrant listing. Not an SPA, newer to wiki but haven't had time to edit more, but maintain that I disagree that it fails WP:DIRECTOR, as subject is well known in independent film business. User18889 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 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. Unsourced BLP mandates deletion. Sandstein 18:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Segenreich[edit]

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

Unref blp that has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 11 years. Seems more than neglect; successful journalist, but doesn't pass WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about [73] and [74]? I don't read German, but these look like something. Sorting this into Germany-related discussions as well in the hopes of getting more German speakers. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:55, 12 October 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farida Kabir[edit]

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

New page review: BLP of a young woman entrepreneur. I think it’s probably a case of WP:TOOSOON and while she has some coverage I’m not sure that it all adds up to the notability we require. Seeking consensus on this one. Mccapra (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [75] and [76] appear to meet WP:GNG. ~Kvng (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to just barely pass WP:GNG. WestCD (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Kvng, Em-mustapha 18:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhasker Patel[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR One reference is a dead link, IMDB isn't considered a reliable and independent source. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 09:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of the types of significant roles in notable productions needed to show an actor is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article was hijacked. I reverted and added references. Inwind (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The person clearly fails WP:NACTOR due to not having multiple in-depth reliable secondary sources about them. The three sources in the article after it was supposedly "restored to a notable state" are a basic biographical listing, an article that seems to be written by the actor himself about his life, and one about him endorsing a stroke awareness campaign. Which has absolutely nothing to do with him aside content wise. There doesn't seem to be anything else out there that would pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG either. So, as things currently are this seems like a clear delete case. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:31, 12 October 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salique (singer)[edit]

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

This article uses streaming sites and some other trivial mentions as references. I think these are not WP:RS. The singer has most likely retired after a tiny musical career; looking at his social media accounts. This article should be deleted. UserNumber (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 25. UserNumber (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as does have multiple reliable sources coverage already in the article for his brief but intermittently successful career that included a number 1 on the world iTunes music chart (not an official chart but still an indicator), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. He's worked with several blue-linked artistes, but notability is not inherited. The iTune chart is specifically precluded under WP:BADCHARTS and I can't find anything else to demonstrate lasting notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing is mediocre at best and the singer didn't chart anywhere notable. Plus, the article is a little on the advertish side and was created by a blocked user. So, this seems like a clear delete to me and I'm not sure what else there is to say about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The singer has been noticed in some media sources that might be reliable in other contexts, but for this singer they only offer brief introductory interviews and new release announcements that are probably reprinted promotions from the management. The sources cannot quite overcome the requirements at WP:SIGCOV and WP:PROMOTION. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 02:11, 19 October 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neola, Missouri[edit]

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

Not convinced this one passes WP:GEOLAND. The State Historical Society calls it a small trading point, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tingley, Missouri is a precedent that that's not enough for a GEOLAND pass. The topos I can turn up nvever show more than two or three buildings at the site. My WP:LIBRARY application for newspapers.com access is still pending, so I'm having to go by Google books, which is only brining up bare namedrops, e.i. somebody had a Neola address, or somebody died in the vicinity. Such namedrops do not prove that WP:GEOLAND is met, and WP:GNG looks like a failure, as well. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources show Neola was a real rural community where people lived, traded, and died.72.49.7.25 (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. KidAd talk 04:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A trading point is more than an empty building or a name on a map. It's a place which at least for some period in history was an actual, tho possibly small, community-in this case consisting also of a church, and dwellings. A place which has those basic elements is (or in this case, was)., an actual community: a meeting place, a trading place., and a place where people lived. Even without the church I would support it--such trading posts are of historical importance. (And if we reject Tingley, we need to revisit it. WP does not run by precedent, but corrects errors) DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: Read WP:GEOLAND. These need legal recognition for notability, which this one lacks. Hog Farm _Bacon 10:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way we interpret GEOLAND is by discussing individual articles at afd. Reading it, I see that "On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability. "

We are normally on all subjects much more flexible in accepting weak articles on historically existing or historically relevant topics. Doing a wider interpretation in such cases is within our discretion. Guidelines are called guidelines because they describe what we usually do. The consensus here will either agree that this should be an exception, or not. DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per DGG- this is a place where people, lived, worshiped, and traded. Here are a couple classifieds in Neola. A man was born here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment I have a certain ambivalence about these "trading point" entries, but in this case you can see the "trading point" for yourself in Street View. It's a quite small white building at a crossroads, with a modern ranch house behind, and that is it. Talking about a "community" strikes me as euphemistic: what we have testimony for is that there was a country store where the USPS found it desirable maintain an office well into the RFD era. Nobody had the nerve to call it a town or village or hamlet, and if it ever had a population it would appear to have consisted of no one beyond, maybe, the storekeeper and his immediate family. The notion of it being a "community" seems to me to be unprovable one way or the other; the word is really be used as a substitute for "town" or the like, and and unless one is willing to accept the notion of a "one store town" with no other buildings, I'm really not seeing how the current content of the article can be justified. And if you are willing to tell the bald truth ("Neola, Missouri was a place where there used to be a store with a post office in it") I think you would be much harder pressed to justify its notability. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After some consideration, I'm going to have to go with delete. The evidence is particularly strong that, as I said above, this was nothing more than an isolated store that was a convenient place to put a post office in a rural area. This was not a town/village/hamlet; at best it could be elevated to a locale. Maybe. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 12 October 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 Pilgrim Township, Dade County, Missouri. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrim, Missouri[edit]

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

I don't think this place meets WP:GEOLAND. The State Historical Society calls it a "small trading point", an old local history [77] calls it a "post village" and a flag station on the Frisco railroad. Topos never show more than five buildings here. GNIS gives it a census code of U6, which means it is not incorporated and probably means it doesn't pass the legally recognized community portion of WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's pretty clear Pilgrim had residents and served as a rural trading point, even though the population of the community was small.72.49.7.25 (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- The farm I grew up on had residents and was a meeting point where people exchanged things. Is it notable now? Hog Farm _Bacon 10:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A trading point is more than an empty building or a name on a map. It's a place which at least for some period in history was an actual, tho possibly small, community-in this case consisting also of a church, and dwellings. A place which has those basic elements is (or in this case, was)., an actual community: , a trading place., and a place where people lived. such trading posts are of historical importance. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Had a population on 100 in 1895. A merge to Pilgrim Township might be appropriate also. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure that source is reliable. It has a disclaimer on the home page that it doesn't guarantee reliability of any of its information and says to use with care. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pilgrim Township, Dade County, Missouri. The township was named after the older settlement located within it, so, since the settlement has never been incorporated, they are really the same place. This article mentions a population of 129 for the township. blameless 02:36, 15 October 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Arthur Williams (professor)[edit]

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

Was prodded with reason "Fails WP:NPROF, WP:NATH and WP:GNG. No sourcing to suggest otherwise. Best source is a diverse article, but isn't enough on its own.". I deprodded because it didn't seem like a perfectly clear delete decision. The guy has a combination of WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF, although he does not meet either. Could also argue that he is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" (WP:BIO), but as far as one can tell, he could have lied all this time that he was once a thug just to achieve more attention. I wanted to see others' opinion. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn’t sure about this one either. I thought if there reviews of his books he might pass as an author but didn’t look to see. Mccapra (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is way over promotional. I do not think the sources are enough to show notability, but the article as it is is written as an add to try to get people to schedule him as a speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis individual is authentic, and he has a litany of acting credits. He is recognized as a scholar, domestically and internationally. He has written over four books. What is the argument against? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unmaskytp (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unmaskytp. It is considered extremely rude to blank someone else's vote, so please refrain from doing that. I'm assuming you made it by mistake, for not being familiarized with the deletion proposal process. If you want the article to be kept, I suggest that you write keep in the beginning of your vote, in the same fashion as Johnpacklambert's vote. Also, your vote will have more strength if you base your arguments on the WP:Notability guidelines. Please consider reading WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR, as these are the guidelines pertinent to this deletion discussion. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't see any sign of WP:NPROF, and I didn't find reviews for WP:NAUTHOR. There's a possible GNG case, but it is not so strong: he has some local coverage in the Knoxville News Sentinel and on U Tennessee radio (the independence of the latter is questionable), and somewhat broader scoped coverage on diverseeducation.com. Meanwhile, the article is promotional enough that WP:TNT appears to apply. Comment that the user's webpage is unmaskytp.com, which suggests rather strongly that Unmaskytp is either the subject or else engaged in undisclosed paid editing; the username appears to be in violation of WP:ORGNAME. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD rationale and Russ Woodroofe. I don't see the pass of GNG based on mostly local sourcing, and certainly don't see PROF or NAUTHOR being met. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me Walwal20. I apologize my friend unmaskytp.

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. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hosseinzadeh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Other than having several new non notable songs, nothing has changed since the prior discussion. Praxidicae (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing many reliable citations or even a basic mentions in publications in English. Most of the provided citations fail verification and do not mention Ali Hosseinzadeh by name, which is a problem since this is a BLP. Ali Hosseinzadeh doesn't have an article in Wikipedia Farsi either. Jooojay (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jooojay: The fact that the articles of some Iranian musicians are not in the Persian Wikipedia is due to the suffocation of music and the lack of recognition of musicians in Iran. They were not in the Persian Wikipedia and have been removed, but they have had articles in the English Wikipedia. Like Roya Arab and Tanbe10 and Bahram Nouraei Hossein.income (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if Persian language sources were used in the article, it cannot be said that the sources were invalid Sources for this article are Iranian Students News Agency, Mehr News Agency, Ettela'at Newspaper and Tasnim News Agency Hossein.income (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jooojay: There are many articles like this one. Do we have to remove them all? Due to the suffocation and censorship of Iranian musicians, they can not interview the English-language media or put them in the news or cover themselves. Because they may be endangered by governments in Iran I can show more than a thousand articles like Sanam Pasha Kaveh Afagh Arya Aziminejad Ghogha These articles are either not in Persian Wikipedia or the sources mentioned in them are completely Persian, so we must delete them Hossein.income (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jooojay: This person has collaborated with many well-known artists who currently live in the United States, such as Siavash Ghomayshi, Mehrdad Asmani, and Shahram Kashani. Unfortunately, due to the prevailing conditions in Iranian music, these collaborations do not become media Hossein.income (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jooojay: I have found this source in tehran times ^[1] which is in English but this source may be removed as the sources for Bahram Nouraei interviews with Rolling Stone ^[2] and the interviews of Ashkan Kooshanejad ^[3], Mahdiar Aghajani ^[4] and Kaveh Afagh ^[5] are not available. Hossein.income (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a lot of Pop musicians in Iran with reliable sources so that logic doesn't make sense, half of the citations you added here are dead links (see WP:RS, WP:N). If you want to prove that this person is notable, instead of using this page, use the existing WP article and update the citations to prove it. Jooojay (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting notability guidelines for notability for a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: He has Wikipedia Music policies Composer, songwriter and production of several famous pieces by Iranian singers such as Morteza Pashaei, Hamid Askari, Mehrdad Asmani and Payam Salehi, who was one of the main members of Arian Band. He is even the composer of a musical theater in the Vahdat Hall, which was attended by 1,760 spectators. He qualifies for WP:COMPOSER and WP:NALBUM. An artist with 18 years of music activity with hardship, pressure and censorship in Iran who has done a lot of work in his career Hossein.income (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: He received the Uncle Pumble Theater Award for Best Composer last year from the Institute for the Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults. Hossein.income (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to satisfy WP:SINGER and general notability criteria. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBirdsShedTears: Why did he compose for a TV show In 2015, he composed the title track for Glory be to Allah, which aired on IRIB TV3's^[6] Mahe Asal He meets WP:SINGER This program is broadcast every year in Iran in the month of Ramadan on IRIB TV3 This TV show was created by Ehsan Alikhani and has a score of 6.6 on IMDB ^[7]

Hossein.income (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hossein.income (talk • contribs) 07:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hossein.income (talk • contribs) 07:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added photos of magazines related to the national music charts of the country in 2010 and 2011. As you can see, the works that this person played in making them are in these charts, so he has covered in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hossein.income (talk • contribs) 08:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The bludgeon is blinding. Anyway, per nom, subject doesn’t possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them to warrant a standalone at the moment. Celestina007 (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: What sources do you look at the articles of other Iranian musicians? This is how it is. Music in Iran is hard to cover. What do you do if you look at articles like Iman Ebrahimi, Tanbe10 and Mahdyar Aghajani In Iran, independent artists work hard in any genre, and their sources of coverage have been Facebook and blogs from the beginning. It is obvious in any style, except for those who are in the classical style and connected to the government Well, that's why composers and musicians should have no place here. This is not oppression, artists should be given a chance. Hossein.income (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing has really changed since the sockpuppet-flooded AfD from last year. Appears to perform with some notable musicians but Hosseinzadeh himself does not appear to have the in-depth coverage necessary to pass GNG and does not meet the inclusionary notability guidelines for musicians. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Current music scene". Tehran Times. 2020-02-19. Retrieved 2020-10-12.
^ http://www.rollingstoneme.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1131
^ https://thump.vice.com/en_us/article/ash-koosha-immigration-ban-statement
^ "‫مـصـاحبه مجله "نسیم هراز" با مهدیار آقاجانی ؛ باد مارا خواهد برد | Facebook‬". www.facebook.com. Retrieved 2020-10-12.
^ Elham, Basirat. "Malaysia Today's special: Kaveh Afagh – My today magazine". My today magazine. Retrieved 2020-10-12.
^ تبیان, موسسه فرهنگی و اطلاع رسانی. "تیتراژ ابتدایی ماه عسل 94 / طاها حسنی". تبیان (in Persian). Retrieved 2020-10-12.
^ Mah-e Asal (TV Series 2007– ) - IMDb, retrieved 2020-10-12

Delete. I was canvassed on 8 November 2019 with this email: "Hey, I'm a fan of Ali Hosseinzadeh, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Hosseinzadeh. Due to restrictions in Iran, it is not possible to broadcast interviews with foreign media. Not everyone who writes about collaborating with other singers means that it is a two-person work, meaning that the composer has performed a piece that the singer has performed. That is, Ali Hosseinzadeh was the owner of the work. Because of the mafia in Iranian music, nothing is transparent. The result is being judged unfairly. He has been since 2003. It is working so it is abnormal that anyone who does not have the standard required to work can survive to this day, In Iran, most people do not know composers unless they follow bad policies. They are only pursuing Singers. We are trying to defend these artists. Please help us and reconsider your comment if possible - Thanks Lila". The email name did not match the person's closing. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 15 October 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. The keep arguments are more adjacent to hope and aspiration than policy and there is no credible argument that GNG is met. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anchal Vohra[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. lack of independent coverage. SIGCOV and gng XpediaF1 (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a journalist with work experience across various channels and publications spanning over a decade. It would be better to improve the article rather than delete it. AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. XpediaF1 (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. XpediaF1 (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think we should tag it for better sourcing rather than deleting as there are more sources available online, I did a quick web search and found many reliable sources, for me this passes WP:GNG. -- Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage in independent reliale sources and there is no evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. GSS ^💬 22:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there are enough links of her work, and enough short introductions about her on websites where her articles are posted, but other than say having been a direct survivor of the recent Beirut blast in Lebanon, there is nothing about her. Even GNG seems difficult to meet despite her being a notable journalist. DTM (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the criteria's for WP:JOURNALIST says "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Searching "Anchal Vohra" in Google Scholar shows that she has been cited. (link). Further, searching for "Anchal Vohra" in Google Books shows that her work has been used in books such as Rebuilding Syria (page 125) DTM (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Journalists are public persons which makes them noteworthy. For example, Sarah Jacob. AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply having a job doesn't make one notable. There has to be some indication that sources have written about her, which so far no one has presented. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I'd say that she at least has enough coverage to make her meet WP:BASIC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see eye to eye with PMC. Almost all the articles cited as references have been written by the subject herself. We need coverage about her NOT by her.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's coverage about her that's required, it's there and it's included in the page. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AltruisticHomoSapien (talk • contribs) 18:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AltruisticHomoSapien you have voted twice. Please remove or strike one of them. Thanks.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:34, 14 October 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Johnstone (darts player)[edit]

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

Johnstone was a darts player who never achieved any great success. His highest finish was as a Quarter-Finalist in the British Darts Organization championships, and no information can be found about him anywhere but the comprehensive darts databases. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:SPORTSCRIT by competing in a major international competition (the BDO World Professional Darts Championships) five times. Richard North's article was kept after only competing in one PDC World Championships. Dougal18 (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Papaursa (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SPORTSCRIT mentions an assumption of notability if the person has participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics). While the BDO World Professional Darts Championship may be the pinnacle of darts competition, I don't think it rises to the level of the Olympics. The use of a guidepost like the Olympics exists because there is an assumption that Olympic athletes will have been covered by some independent media. It's not clear that darts enjoys the same media attention, so even competitors who reach (but do not win) the international championships do not attract sufficient media attention to make them notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It is also worth noting that by the time Johnstone was competing in it the BDO World Championship was one of two rival World Championships (the other being the PDC) and some would argue the BDO was the less significant of the two. Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 23 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 13:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think merely competing at a world darts championship is sufficient to show automatic notability. I noticed that the Darts database shows career earnings of less than 20,000 pounds which seems to indicate the minor sports nature of darts. The important thing is that meeting WP:NSPORT would still only give a presumption of notability, not a guarantee. My search found no evidence that he meets WP:GNG and the article doesn't have a single source supporting a claim of significant coverage. Being an unused sub in a soccer game does not meet any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG way too much. Playing an international competition indeed leads to a presumption of notability, but this presumption is clearly rebutted once you search for coverage on the subject. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 18:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning delete but relisting a third time to see if this consensus can be made clearer (or if there is actually no consensus at all).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not clear to me that playing in a BDO demonstrates a clear NSPORTS pass, which itself would only indicate presumed notability; I just spent a bit of time looking for independent reliable coverage, and drew a blank - the subject doesn't seem to pass the requirements of GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:49, 19 October 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mamunul Haque[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN
- Not a member of legislative body.
- No in depth and independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists found. (3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14,15,16,17 sources are not reliable. 18 & 19 are e-commerce site. Others are routine coverage.)
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics)
Fails WP:AUTHOR ~Yahya (✉) • 11:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Yahya (✉) • 11:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~Yahya (✉) • 11:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~Yahya (✉) • 11:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ~Yahya (✉) • 11:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~Yahya (✉) • 11:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep per ~~WP:GNG~~ WP:BIO. I'm not disappointed with the amount of content found by googling his native name মামুনুল হক. Article might need improving, but article quality is no reason to delete. Maybe see WP:NEXIST. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 04:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Walwal20: Can you read Bangla?

All are "trivial mention" —>N"Significant coverage"
Most of the sources are unreliable.—>N"Reliable"
Most of the sources are fan site of his political party. —>N"Independent of the subject."~Yahya (✉) • 17:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya, I used google translate. He seems notable for his speeches, even if it's just within a specific group of people (not that small, considering his youtube channel statistics). Maybe I should say notability per WP:BIO rather than WP:GNG. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 07:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 10:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:POLOUTCOMES says political figures not elected to public office are sometimes considered notable if they are the leaders of registered national parties. Khelafat Majlish is such a party. It is led by an ameer and a general secretary. So he is potentially notable for being joint general secretary, despite the party's lack of electoral success - if this is one of those "sometimes". --Worldbruce (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (after removing content that is not reliably sourced) to political party Khelafat Majlish (to the extent that the merged content is not WP:UNDUE). My assessment is that 6 of the 19 cited sources are of dubious reliability (dailysomoyersomikoron.com, probashirdiganta.com, Rtmnews24.com, Insiderion.com, Fact Sider, and Famous Born). That could be fixed by editing. One cited source is a wing of the party he leads, and two are press releases from the party [Bangla Tribune (1 of 2) and The Daily Sangram], so not independent. That leaves six independent, reliable sources that are not "fan sites" of his party: the Daily Inqilab, Daily Naya Diganta (2), Somoyer Konthosor, Bangla Tribune (2 of 2), and Kaler Kantho. Their depth of content about him is shallow, however. It is not WP:SIGCOV, it does not address his life directly and in detail. Searches of the usual types found nothing better. So he is not notable and does not merit a stand alone article. Merge, however, is a reasonable alternative to deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC.

6.The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
He is the principle of Mahadut Tarbiatul Islamia, a higher Islamic education, research and training institution in Bangladesh. Owais Al Qarni (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahadut Tarbiatul Islamia, which he founded, falls far far short of being a major academic institution. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of major academic institution in Bangladesh.Owais Al Qarni (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce, Yahya, and Walwal20: Mamunul Haque has been elected Secretary General of Bangladesh Khilafah Majlis.see Owais Al Qarni (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think, Worldbruce's comment should be applied in that case too.~Yahya (✉) • 05:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Secretary General of Bangladesh Khelafat Majlish has resigned. A meeting will be held on September 10. Mamunul Haque will be elected Secretary General. Because he is Joint Secretary General. Owais Al Qarni (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Owais Al Qarni is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.~Yahya (✉) • 19:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Owais Al Qarni is requesting me to withdraw this nomination on articles talk page.~Yahya (✉) • 05:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because: Now, he is the Secretary General of Khelafat Majlish. Owais Al Qarni (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Yahya: I don't see anything inappropriate from Owais Al Qarni. Article creators are allowed to join AfDs and it's only natural they would try to defend the articles they created. There is nothing wrong with the talk page message either, the message reads, "He has been elected as the General Secretary of Bangladesh Khelafat Majlis, you can withdraw the nomination" with few sources added beside. You can leave a note when you suspect sock/meatpuppetry or any inappropriate WP:Canvassing. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kmzayeem: Thanks for the feedback. (1) it's only natural they would try to defend the articles they created and that's why their comments create less value (own thought)+ I saw this kind of notes in previous afd. (2) I left this note because, I think all discussion should be kept in one place. And your vote for this afd? :D~Yahya (✉) • 20:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I re-edited the article and added reliable references. Owais Al Qarni (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to keep them (this & other like this) but i see no proper significant coverage that are independent of the subject (I also search by myself). All of sources are passing menting, no in-depth coverage. Subject doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN, WP:NACADEMIC. So per @Worldbruce, I will say merge for now. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He was the joint secretary general, so there was less coverage in the media. He is currently the Secretary General, now more coverage will come. So I see no reason to delete this article. His speech means the speech of the whole party. Owais Al Qarni (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't matter whether he is secretary or not. Wikipedia doesn't allow notability on their post or positions. ~ A. Shohag (ping_me or Talk) 12:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia has different categories of notability. In my opinion it doesn't fails GNG. There's several identity of the person. Some can be found from his fans in the top of google search, like this video. He seems to have popularity among his fans. It won't be any problem if it's kept. ~ A. Shohag (ping_me or Talk) 12:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Owais Al Qarni, Walwal20. He seems to be notable in his home country of Bangladesh and has an influence there, through his printed books and lectures.--TheEagle107 (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Walwal20 messages have been posted to user in there talk pages including this who voted here hence the tag.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Citations over kill. The article creator left a message on my talk page a few days back, and I was busy in working on the Muhammad Adil Khan article, so I'm here late. I'm not able to assess the sources in article as they're mostly Bengali and I don't understand Bengali but I guess the subject is notable in Bangladesh, as the statement in lede says, he was arrested for so and so, and has so and so positions, which I guess are fine for a Muslim scholar or cleric to be notable, and that too an indication, "presumed to be notable", and that would be a SNG little pass as ShohagS suggested above. This article requires a lot of cleanup but AfD is not cleanup. If multiple sources having little little coverage are combined they may be regarded as a whole as significant coverage. Thank you ─ The Aafī (^talk) 21:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope my username is not tagged as canvassed. I've rightly said that in my comment that I only came to this AfD because I received a message on my talk page from the creator of the article. Best. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 21:21, 15 October 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Innovo Management[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous Afd, WP:BADNAC. Non-notable. Run of the mill business news, routine announcements, passing mentions and so on. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 00:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @JanaFisher:, who has written most of the page, to see if they have any additional information/sourcing to provide. Barring that, I go with Delete per nom. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me @WhinyTheYounger:. I have added updates including a Forbes article about the company to further make the case for WP:NCORP. JanaFisher (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reverted that addition of the Forbes reference. It is deprecated. More so, it is contributor, meaning it is not even Forbes staff. Its not a reliable source. scope_creep^Talk 08:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with scope creep, the Forbes article is by a Forbes contributor and is not independent. Sources are interviews with founders, routine announcements, article lacks in-depth significant coverage.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:25, 15 October 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.