< 13 October 15 October >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Jensen (musician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Adam Jensen (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously soft deleted, with my nominating rationale as Best as I can tell, this bio fails WP:MUSICBIO. No charting albums or songs, no major music awards (only a minor regional award), and only routine press coverage. It was recently undeleted by request of an editor claiming to be the subject of the article, whose only other edits were getting themselves blocked for personal attacks. Based on that, I am renominating for deletion (on the same grounds of lack of notability) in hopes of more participation in the discussion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
— 72.74.153.140 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IrishDynamo9. Cabayi (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And which ones would you claim he does? He certainly doesn't meet #1. He has never had a song or album hit a national chart. He has never had a gold record. He has never had reliable coverage of any international tour. He's just released two albums, period, never mind multiple albums on a major label. He has never been in a band with multiple notable musicians. He has never won a Grammy or other major music award. Etc etc etc. 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0. Ravenswing 23:28, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harshita Tiwary[edit]

Harshita Tiwary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. She is not mentioned in any of the sources that are in the article. I cannot find significant discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources. (56 Google results on search of her name.) ... discospinster talk 22:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 22:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 22:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:30, 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. ST47 (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Bland[edit]

Roy Bland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability for this fictional character. ... discospinster talk 22:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:46, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 02:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artwiz fonts[edit]

Artwiz fonts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This ain't a subject I'm too familiar with, but this doesn't look to pass WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Of the three references in the article, one is an interview with the developer of the font, and the other two look a little iffy. Mostly just finding forums, blogs, and places to get the code for these. Given that it's been in CAT:NN since 2010, this deserves a hearing on notability. I don't think it's notable, based on the coverage I can find, but I'm admittedly a non-expert in this area. Hog Farm Bacon 22:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 22:01, 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lawson (soccer)[edit]

Tim Lawson (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks to fail WP:NFOOTY, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG. Like the article says, his MLS career resulted in no games played, per [1], and the tier of German soccer he played in falls below the bar given at WP:FPL (league played in not a fully professional league). All the coverage I can find is two sentences here, which states that he's out of soccer and is a systems engineer. This is paywalled, but may be something. Beyond that, that's about it. Notability tagged since 2010, so time to get a hearing on this fellow. Hog Farm Bacon 21:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 21:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 21:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 21:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 21:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 21:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:28, 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. ST47 (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Appleyard[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mark Appleyard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a requirement that our sources be web-published at all — we are allowed to cite print-only sources, such as archival news reporting retrieved from microfilm, clippings or locked research databases, without hotlinking them anywhere. But conversely, we can't stake notability on Q&A interviews where the person is speaking about themselves in the first person — we can use Q&A interviews sparingly for verification of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by third-party coverage, but interviews don't directly count as bringers of the GNG if they are the best sources he's got. But you are right that either way, two sources isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the above comment, I realise I was not clear enough in my delete rationale. For the Toronto Star article, I was not trying to insinuate that we can't use the article because it's a print newspaper. Instead, I was describing where I found the article so others could find it themselves and access it to make their own judgements (and I didn't want to post a direct link because the URL reveals which city's library I used to find the article). In my analysis of the Toronto Star source, it is a short bio of Appleyard that doesn't establish notability. I am sorry for the confusion. Please ping me if there are any questions. Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 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. ST47 (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Chalmers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alex Chalmers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat Can you elaborate? Not questioning, just trying to understand your comment and the concept of "inherent" notability as a relatively new user. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 15:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are certain notability claims that we consider so important that as long as they're verifiably accurate, an article has to be allowed to exist regardless of its current state of sourcing: a politician winning election to the national legislature; a person in any field of endeavour winning a top level award in their field (such as actors or actresses winning Oscars or Emmys or Tonys, musicians winning Grammys, etc.); an athlete making it to the Olympics or getting drafted into the top professional league for their sport; and on and so forth. Basically, an inherent notability claim is an achievement that's so significant and important that as long as it can be properly verified as true, it essentially clinches the person's notability right on its face — so if a person has one of those, we keep the article even if the sources in it aren't great, and just flag it for reference improvement because the likelihood of there being other solid sources that we just haven't found or used yet is very high. But there are also many notability claims that aren't considered automatic notability guarantees, where instead their notability depends much more strongly on the quality of the sources they do or don't have to support an article with — basically, if their notability claim boils down to having done their job (a musician, writer, actor or filmmaker claiming notability because their work exists rather than because of any noteworthy awards or distinctions, etc.), then they have to have much more solid sourcing to get in the door in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 21 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Ford (businessman)[edit]

William Ford (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this fellow, who's been notability tagged since 2010, meets the relevant notability guidlines. The referencing in the article is either unreliable, primary sourcing, or doesn't mention him. I wouldn't call this significant coverage. Other coverage is largely passing mentions, or is in self-published or otherwise unreliable genealogical sites. He can't inherit notability from his very notable son Henry Ford. I'm not seeing any indication that the subject passes WP:GNG or any of the applicable SNGs, including WP:ANYBIO. Hog Farm Bacon 21:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 21:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 21:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 21:31, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commanders who never lost a battle[edit]

Commanders who never lost a battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think the existence of this article can be justified, mostly because there is hardly such a thing as 'commanders who never lost a battle'; it is hardly, if at all, ever possible to determine that a commander in fact never lost a single battle. This goes especially for pre-modern commanders, who make up the vast majority of the list, since sources about them are scarce and not all their battles have been recorded. It doesn't seem neutral then to claim that they have never lost a battle. On top of that, the article hardly has any sources backing any of those claims; and as I stated before, in most cases it won't be possible to find the sources necessary to justify them. Therefore, it seems to me that the solution would be to delete the article rather than try to improve it. Also, only 4 other Wikipedia articles link to this one, which I think also says something about its relevance. Lennart97 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:19, 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. Evidently a WP:POINT nom (and several POINT !votes), but there has been a discussion with arguments on both sides, so speedy keep due to withdrawal is not possible. We appear to have several WP:SPAs here, I'll remind them that this is a debate, not a vote.

We have no policy that states that unelected candidates for public office are not notable. I don't see any attempt to refute the arguments that James is notable under the GNG, so our consensus is to keep per the GNG. ST47 (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John E. James[edit]

John E. James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If Theresa Greenfield isn't considered notable, then John James shouldn't be either. WP:NPOL needs to be applied equally, and James does not meet WP:GNG. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 20:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Withdrawing my nomination, now that consensus has been reached on Theresa Greenfield. I personally feel that both candidates are notable enough to warrant inclusion, and my initial concern was one of fairness and consistency, which has now been addressed. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 23:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't see an issue with OP's reasoning here, and so far as prior notability is concerned, we don't give every 40 under 40 in a state a notability pass. Iseult Δx parlez moi 21:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmcewenjr (talk • contribs) 14:32, October 18, 2020 (UTC)

As another editor pointed out, James previously ran in 2018 for the Senate, so I don't believe we're be able to do that. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, very few of the contributors here were involved in Greenfield's article deletion and as such we have no idea how'd they would've voted on that discussion, so there's no need to "be consistent" when making our decisions here. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:05, 21 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bambina Arbogast[edit]

Bambina Arbogast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character, only mentions of her are on various wikis and lists but nothing substantive in reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 20:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 20:38, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Couple[edit]

Comedy Couple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM; unreleased, referenced with a few promo links, no significant coverage online in WP:RS. Moved to draft for improvement several times, and recreated with identical poor references each time. Captain Calm (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 20:00, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teezio[edit]

Teezio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is lacking as there are zero reliable sources able to be found regarding this individual (after a WP:BASIC search). The article is clearly promotional and written by a friend of his (in violation of WP:COI/WP:DISCLOSE). I tried to advise them this article would not work for this encyclopedia with the lack of notability, and put the article up for PROD, but they removed that so now we're here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:25, 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Highschool Football League[edit]

2007 Highschool Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of being able to meet WP:GNG; we don't generally have stand-alone season articles for football competitions between secondary schools in any case.

Also nominating:

2006 Highschool Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Spiderone 19:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I haven't checked all of the Chinese sources for the league as a whole yet so I have left it. Highly unlikely to be notable, though. Spiderone 10:47, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari F80 Concept[edit]

Ferrari F80 Concept (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non existant car, not approved by a manufacturer. Not notable article. Thesis for independent study. YBSOne (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quote from the creator's website: "All logos and brand names were originally included as part of the Independent Study class requirement to choose a brand, project brief, inspiration, hypothetical buyer and for student portfolio use. Thesis projects were designed under no sponsorship, partnership or affiliation with any brand. All logos and brand names are owned by their respective owners." YBSOne (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 12:04, 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) 22:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haornas Cup[edit]

Haornas Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An under-15 football tournament with little to no coverage in Indonesian media. Fails WP:GNG. These are the sources available

Google News does bring up some results about various futsal tournaments but these appear to be unrelated. Spiderone 18:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:55, 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taichung World Youth Football Festival[edit]

Taichung World Youth Football Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero hits on Google News. Highly unlikely to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:54, 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. Consensus appears to be to delete, as there is not enough material in the source article to merge. MTATransitFan, if you would like to try to merge, feel free to ask me or any admin for a copy of the article to be placed in your userspace. ST47 (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NYU Transportation[edit]

NYU Transportation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnard Public Safety Shuttle, Does not meet WP:GNG. Only primary and/or non-RS sources. Onel5969 TT me 18:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:56, 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. Consensus is to delete, if you believe that sources exist to satisfy WP:GNG, you need to present those sources, not just mention the results of a Google search. ST47 (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Considered[edit]

Nike Considered (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been tagged as a WP:GNG concern for over 10 years now with no improvements made. Ignoring the fact that the article is blatantly promotional, there do not seem to be many reliable secondary sources available about this product.


I couldn't find anything better in a WP:BEFORE search. Spiderone 17:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:58, 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. North America1000 02:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon Ohio Fifth Third Bank Robbery[edit]

Lebanon Ohio Fifth Third Bank Robbery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested with no reasoning. PROD rationale was "Seems to be an event that never got more than local coverage and doesn't meet WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG. Relatively minor robbery without indication of lasting significance. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:59, 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. ST47 (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020 Beirut explosion[edit]

October 2020 Beirut explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Minimal coverage. MB 17:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MB 17:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. MB 17:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*KeepThe explosion in Beirut was an event with international repercussions. The event has significant coverage from multiple secondary and reliable sources. The article needs to be expanded, not deleted. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ​ Please explain how this minor, forgettable incident has "international repercussions". -- Veggies (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @A.WagnerC, are you confusing this and the August 2020 Beirut explosion? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom Kaos and Veggies: Yes. It's Wikinews. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ​Pokelova !voted to delete. -- Veggies (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Veggies: Thanks, fixed. GPinkerton (talk) 23:46, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mizuno Morelia[edit]

Mizuno Morelia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe that this passes WP:GNG. Most sources about it are either promo pieces [11] [12] or being listed among several other boots in recommended buys [13] [14]. I'm not seeing significant coverage in sources that could be considered reliable. I also have an issue with 'famous wearers' and propose that, if this article is kept, then we delete that part. It will be almost impossible to reliably source. Spiderone 17:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:54, 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. ST47 (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah's Bay plantation[edit]

Josiah's Bay plantation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable property. This article was forked in 2007 from History of the British Virgin Islands. The content was unsourced there, and remains unsourced. I can only find wikipedia mirrors and brief mentions on tourism sites that mention this property. Checking g'books, jstor, proquest, newspapers.com, and general web search, I cannot find reliable sources to support its history or the story of its renovation. Schazjmd (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:29, 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 and redirect to Sedale Threatt#Personal life. Sandstein 17:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sedale Threatt Jr. (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sedale Threatt Jr. (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was AfD'd back in 2018, and still only has one significant role. Onel5969 TT me 14:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I made the article mostly because I was annoyed that people kept linking to Sedale Threatt Jr. (basketball). It looks like he is about to get some more recognition. He was cast in the leading role of a Chucky Mullins biopic. Voicebox64 (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:56, 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. ST47 (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pesa Nasha Pyar[edit]

Pesa Nasha Pyar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable Salimfadhley (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:27, 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. Was eligible for speedy deletion (G5, LaurelWest). MER-C 14:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Mills[edit]

Terence Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable business person, only has mill coverage and paid for PR pieces. Praxidicae (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:26, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Hakimi[edit]

Dana Hakimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable actor who's primary claim to fame is being the child of a notable person. Praxidicae (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:58, 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. ST47 (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Le Temps d'un film[edit]

Le Temps d'un film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. All I found were film database sites and other wikis/blogs. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:26, 29 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) 01:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:23, 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. While there are elements that are frequently found in notable companies - such as the number of employees - there is a consensus that the sourcing found to date does not satisfy WP:NCORP and so this company is not notable. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RDS (group of companies)[edit]

RDS (group of companies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Civil engineering company. Generic. scope_creepTalk 00:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I figured a UPE or a SPA would turn up, The fact it is biggest doesn't mean the article doesn't have satisfy policy. I'm sure the company will survive quite well without a Wikipedia article. I will go through the references and show why they are terrible and don't meet WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk
Excuse me, but how is the discussion whether the company will survive or not without a page connected to the AfD process? --Mulage9 (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above account is WP:SPA who has made few edit to Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 19:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [18] RDS co-owner Yuriy Shumakher: We are carrying out rebranding to expand presence in Ukraine and enter European market Exclusive interview with Yuriy Shumakher. Its dependent coverage. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • [19] The Ukrainian company RDS has won a tender for the construction of the Kropyvnytsky - Kryvyi Rih - Zaporozhye highway Routine announcement. standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • [20] RDS Group to repair, build roads in Kherson region Routine announcement. Its press-release.
  • [21] Ukrainian group of companies RDS bought an asphalt concrete plant and invested in a production base Not independent. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as routine announcement.
* [22] n full swing of the government's big construction program, the RDS road construction group is proposing to hire 850 workers, 70% more than planned. The company is building roads in eight regions. RDS co-owner Yuri Shumakher says: “The construction industry is not in quarantine! And we want to provide jobs to those who need it the most. This is passing mention.

All the rest of the references are similar. They either fails , WP:CORPDEPTH, or WP:ORGIND. They are slightly better than average startup, but the mostly fail WP:SIRS as routine announcements or press-releases. scope_creepTalk 21:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtempleton: here are two sources with kind of decent media coverage: [23], [24] --Mulage9 (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Asketbouncer: here are some new links that might change your vote: [25], [26] --Mulage9 (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both are press-releases and not valid as sources. scope_creepTalk 13:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6 and 7 above are also press-releases from an agency that known a business announcement portal. It is not a reliable source. scope_creepTalk 13:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mulage9: thanks. I've looked and changed my mind to weak keep. The sources are not pre-releases, but a detailed mention of the leading Ukraine's news agency. It's more than reliable as all press-releases are visually marked on Interfax site and are put into separate section. --Asketbouncer (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are press-releases. They are not independent. scope_creepTalk 14:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it say at the bottom: The ultimate beneficial owners of RDS Group are Ukrainian citizens Yuriy Shumakher and Yevhen Konovalov. in every one. Because there are press-releases and in the scheme of things, its a very low-quality source and you would only use it, if you had nothing else, hence the reason the originating editor points to it. It's a classic brand release marketing pattern. scope_creepTalk 14:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And it states in the ledes: group's co-founder, Yuriy Shumakher, has told Interfax-Ukraine. scope_creepTalk 14:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: just updated the article a little bit and added an interview with CEO of Kyivshliakhbud (subsidiary company). --Mulage9 (talk) 12:55, 21 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 nominator may be an WP:SPA but the other participants in the discussion are not, the consensus is that the subject is not notable and there is no attempt to refute this. ST47 (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Legg[edit]

Dan Legg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page isn't notable. page is a Self-promotion and publicity(although vandalised) for a person with no notability beyond a few media articles. This individual uses publicity (instagram/yourtube/new paper articles etc) to promote their business, this wikipedia article is just another facet of this. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/beatthescammers/article-8522169/Beware-bedroom-traders-boasting-fortunes-currency-bets.htmlKeithClark21 (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Article contains fair content about Dan Legg and I do not believe deletion is the best for Wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:A40F:B200:617C:A795:77AE:5E43 (talk) 20:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign staff members[edit]

List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign staff members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have never had such a separate list for other national campaigns. This is WP:NOT an encyclopedic topic. Many/most of the persons listed are not actual staffers, who number in the thousands and are rarely notable. Others such as "Vice-presidential candidate vetting team" or "Debate Preparation" are transient and should be better documented in the main article. Entire sections are WP:SPECULATION about future positions in a future transition or future administration.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^^ WP:OTHERSTUFF. KidAd talk 21:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:42, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sotero Prieto Rodríguez[edit]

Sotero Prieto Rodríguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NSCHOLAR, in fact, he allegedly committed suicide just because of his lack of accomplishment. Onel5969 TT me 16:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 16:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:02, 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. GirthSummit (blether) 14:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MoneyView[edit]

MoneyView (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP. Sources are all press releases, name drops and comments from those associated with the company, non reliable sources.

Ref no. 1 Press release

Ref no. 2 Press release [30]

Ref no. 3 Passing mention

Ref no. 4 Written by co-founder Puneet Agarwal

Ref no. 5 Seems paid promo

Ref no. 6 writte by co-founder Puneet Agarwal

Ref no. 8 Passing mention, unreliable source

Ref no. 9 reprint of [31]

Ref no. 10 Press release

Ref no. 12 Passing mention

Ref no. 18 Insignificant source

Ref no. 19 Insignificant source Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:18, 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 Wrong venue. ~ GB fan 09:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blucher (1939 German criser)[edit]

Blucher (1939 German criser) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Jontel (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in title; duplicate page

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 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. North America1000 14:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Quiet Room (2018 film)[edit]

The Quiet Room (2018 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lot of PR stuff, but does not appear to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Gleeanon 11:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a side note, I watched this on Shudder for the synopsis - this really is a great short, if anyone wants to watch a good, creepy short film during the spookiest month of the year! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:52, 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 snow keep--Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changxing railway station[edit]

Changxing railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None notable railway station, we are not a railway guide book. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure otherstuff is a valid argument.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable in its own right, not just existing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So if it is notable, why have you brought it forward to AfD? Nightfury 15:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because I was responding to the question "how do you determine what a "notable" railway station is?" its has to pass wp:n.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you said the subject was notable... Nightfury 15:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes "how do you determine what a "notable" railway station? It is notable in its own right", I did not say it was notable, I said in order to be notable it has to be notable in its own right.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you mean by that? The article now has four sources so I would think it would be notable. NemesisAT (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" Of the sources only 2 seems to be more then one or two lines. The rest I am njot sure are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the others is a primary source, and the other is Chinese media (and so possibly state controlled). I am not sure these are enough to pass GNG.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly if you want any coverage of Chinese railways at all, you're going to need to allow some sate-controlled Chinese media as, as far as I'm aware, no other sources are covering Chinese rail in anywhere near enough depth. It would be a real shame to lose this information. NemesisAT (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason there aren't enough sources is because some editors are arguing that essentially all Chinese sources are unreliable. If only non-Chinese media is admissible, we'll end up with articles about the central railway stations of Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou and a few dozen other cities that Westerners frequent, but the countless Chinese cities like Changxing (with merely 620,000 inhabitants), which would be inherently notable were they to exist in any Western country, will drop out of Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article could be merges with the city article and lose nothing. We are not a station directory, we are an encyclopedia.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus in the past has been that such merges are undesirable. Mackensen (talk) 13:51, 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. North America1000 14:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eintracht Frankfurt kits[edit]

Eintracht Frankfurt kits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTGALLERY. Discussed before in 2018 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC Ajax kit history), and furthermore in 2007 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Bradford City kits). As the result, there are several pages like this in Commons, either made by me or not. This page belongs there. Flix11 (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:31, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Marcus[edit]

Travis Marcus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article runs afoul of multiple guidelines. First off it is sourced to one local coverage item. We generally want something more than local coverage, and generally multiple sources. This is especially true when it is human interest coverage. Also as a recipient as opposed to a doctor it is harder to build a case for notability. Then there is the fact that the opening reads "Travis Marcus is the first child ..." yet Marcus was born in 1990, he is 30 years old, he is by no definition a child, so the wording here is horrible. This is a classic example of BLP1E problems, although with 1 source connected with the event I am not even sure we have those. Not every organ transplant recipient is notable, and one source does not make someone so. We are not a newspaper, so not every child who gets a story about them being in the hospital in the newspaper is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:33, 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. North America1000 02:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghana "34" Aluminum Bucket[edit]

The Ghana "34" Aluminum Bucket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product, no independent sources included in the article, none found. It's just a metal bucket. No, really. Note: Article was tagged via Page Curation by TheLongTone but discussion page was not created for whatever reason, I assume a bug, of which PC seems to have several. Taking it upon myself to create the discussion page--TLT, please chime in. --Finngall talk 16:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 16:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 16:14, 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. ST47 (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selçan Hatun[edit]

Selçan Hatun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of several characters in this/these tv-series, imdb is only ref. An article for all characters may be a good idea, but IMO not separate ones. First time XfD, hopefully this works. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:44, 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 redirect to School strike for climate. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Christiansson[edit]

Erik Christiansson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how this article fulfills WP:GNG. None of the sources on it article are "significant coverage" on the topic. Only coverage about the political movement itself and some trivial mentions. It seems, he's one of the many "school strikers" around the world. Not enough in-depth coverage to have an article on Wikipedia. SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 07:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 07:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:50, 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. North America1000 03:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raat Baaki Hai[edit]

Raat Baaki Hai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON the film is not released yet. IMDB source is a diretory listing and Hindustan times source referred is a promotional article. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:34, 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 no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Democrats (Norway, 1991)[edit]

National Democrats (Norway, 1991) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This political list (not political party) stood once for election in a single municipality (albeit the capital of Norway) and gained six hundred votes. Totally minuscule, but what about RS? The article is supported by two newspaper sources, which is not enough to carry an article. However, a book exists which mentions the National Democracts (probably not accessible outside of Norway), and explains that Hege Søfteland was the only known member. The other members, if they existed, were secret. I therefore propose a merge and redirect to Hege Søfteland. Geschichte (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:59, 29 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) 01:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't get to "vote" twice, so I struck the second "keep". What you have failed to demonstrate is that the purported sources are independent, in-depth non-trivial coverage. Keep in mind that I didn't propose deletion, but merging to the only known active member, so the information would be preserved. The book explicitly states that Erik Gjems-Onstad played a negligible role in this entity, he may have been present at the foundation meeting, but was never active. And I repeat that this political list (not political party) stood once for election in a single municipality (albeit the capital of Norway) and gained six hundred votes. Geschichte (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had no intention of "voting" twice. The discussion was relisted and I repeated my opinion from the previous discussion. This is not a vote, this is a discussion of whether or not the article is relevant.
- Erik Gjems-Onstad was co-founder [[33]][[34]] which is not a negligible rolle. This should not be redirected to Søfteland.
- They also participated in the 1995 elections [[35]]. Then in cooperation with Stopp Innvandringen.
- Press coverage for the period 1990-1992 was significant [[36]]. They are also written about in several books although the book mentioned above is the longest and most comprehensive. Information from this source should be supplementet with other sources though.
- This is a question of expanding the article with the available sources from the books, newspapers and journals scanned by Nasjonalbiblioteket. They are available at nb.no and can be accessed by roundabout everybody resident in Norway. --regards ツDyveldi ☯ prat ✉ post 09:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:21, 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 delete. ST47 (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basheer Koko[edit]

Basheer Koko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. BEFORE showed only mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth.   // Timothy :: talk  03:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article nominated for deletion has a Subject that was a top Executive in Nigeria LNG company, I have provided several references and I don't think this nomination is fair. B Enkay 45 (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subject also played a significant role in negotiations of deals for the Nigerian oil Company NNPC, and is largely responsible for the establishment of NLNG's trains 6&7, working even after retirement. Subject is basically a political figurehead in Nigeria. B Enkay 45 (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is also the 'Sarkin Yakin Gwandu' of Gwandu Emirates of Kebbi State, Nigeria. That is a very prominent traditional role. B Enkay 45 (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subject's article will be expanded (by me or anyone else) as I gather more sources, and will emphasize his importance. If this council is adamant on deletion, then I do plead to be given more time to incubate the article.B Enkay 45 (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@B Enkay 45: This discussion will continue for a week, so you have time to add references that show that Koko has been written about in depth by multiple, reliable, independent publications. See Help:My article got nominated for deletion! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will go ahead and remove the one dead link (It actually wasn't when I cited it) in the references. There is also only one non independent source which I can replace. B Enkay 45 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of the earlier comments are rather weak "per nom" or other brief remarks; would like some discussion on the later points in the debate
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:13, 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. Anyone interested in developing content toward a merger may ask for a draftspace copy. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essex Business Houses Football League[edit]

Essex Business Houses Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It gets a mention [37] in Harry Redknapp's autobiography of all places but, that aside, there is nothing to suggest that this amateur league was ever notable. It could potentially have had very, very minor local coverage. A WP:BEFORE search turned up absolutely nothing other than primary sources and database listings. Fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 08:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:52, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Anglo-Ghadar War[edit]

First Anglo-Ghadar War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coherent (start) portion is copied from the leads of other Wikipedia pages, such as: Ghadar Mutiny and Komagata Maru incident, while additional text is at the bottom. It is unclear such a war happened, sources do not use this name. I am also nominating Third Anglo-Sikh War which is a copy of this article. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third Anglo-Sikh War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 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. Cabayi (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Hospital[edit]

Financial Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Fails to pass NCORP. The article has been created/edited mainly by SPA and COI editors. M4DU7 (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:40, 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 13:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jessie Earl[edit]

Death of Jessie Earl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:NOTNEWS. While news resurfaced due to parents wanting the case re-opened, no long-lasting effects. Simply another tragic occurrence. Onel5969 TT me 15:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:24, 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 04:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle (film)[edit]

Bicycle (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable documentary. Everything found in a WP:BEFORE had to do with the director or were film database sites. Rotten Tomatoes reference is a user review, no critic reviews present. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:24, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 96' Lost Tapes[edit]

The 96' Lost Tapes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM and isn't mentioned at all in Phunk Junkeez, thus not making it a good candidate for a redirect. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2011-02 ✗ G11
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I'm changing my vote to DELETE, given the typo in the page's title. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:49, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trend Receiver[edit]

Trend Receiver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neutral point of view and No original research Doc Taxon (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Methodenforschung (talk • contribs) 16:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

as co-authors of the article "Trend Receiver" we appreciate your continuous efforts to maintain the quality of the free encyclopedia and we are aware that the published articles must be subject to strict control. However, after taking some effort to gather the various sources and after creating an overview article on this topic, we would like to argue why the content of the article is scientifically sound and relevant in terms of content.

The Trend Receiver concept has now been existing for 10 years and it has been receiving growing attention both in research and practice during this time. The article provides an overview of the topic area and does not reproduce individual research results - accordingly, only selected graphics and definition phrases are picked out as examples. Especially over the last years the Trend Receiver concept has been addressed and mentioned in a growing number of scientific articles and these have been quoted and the concept has been discussed in a number of further publications. For example, you will find publications on the Trend Receiver concept in the following recognized journals:

- “Technological Forecasting & Social Change": Article “Visionary competence for long-term development of brands,products, and services: The trend receiver concept and its first applications at Audi”; find PDF here: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0040162514001954?token=CFC09A4881B3278BD4F6EA9AA6D94B31159F8454A83FC1AAFBD0D54CA3A96A3960B75B34CD27D4A30A73C58FB2B2281F

- “Technological Forecasting & Social Change": Article “Strategic Customer Foresight. From research to strategic decision-making using the example of highly automated vehicles”; find PDF here: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0040162518305626?token=DD18B0A1A8D175FE74BDEFC8665EADD2D82AD937DF0BE5FC067B8B300C68039C10F7A1CB4B8E6678B9F615CDF1CE6275

- "Marketing Review St. Gallen" : Article “Customer Foresight Territory”, find PDF here: https://www.elaboratum.de/files/uploads/2020/06/MRSG_01_SPT_Eller-Hofmann-Schwarz_200430_mb2.pdf

- "Marketing Review St. Gallen" : Article “Customer Foresight Practice”; find PDF here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342164123_Customer_foresight_practice_-_how_to_access_future_markets_through_extraordinary_people/link/5ee64d76a6fdcc73be7b981e/download

And in another publication in “Marketing Review St. Gallen” Prof. Dr. Jan Lüken has discussed the concept in the article “Looking for Prophets? The Trend Receiver Approach” Etc. (Find the exact references and other publications in the Wikipedia article.) The here mentioned journals exclusively publish articles after the double-blind-peer-review procedure, which confirms the neutrality and relevance of the research. These publications are accompanied by various practical examples of the concept of which several cases are also published in various places. The applications of the concept range from a study for the Bavarian State Chancellery in the years 2013/2014 to the use in various corporations (Audi, Bentley, Gore, BSH, Hornbach etc., see also the cross-industry platform Foresight Academy where 13 major companies are participating and where the concept is a central part of the methodological approach; find more at www.foresightacademy.com and related to the application of the Trend Receiver Concept at https://www.foresightacademy.com/cont/10574 ) as well as agencies (Hyve in Munich, Gravity in Munich, Z-Punkt in Cologne, etc.). Regarding the practical applications of the concept, see also the studies Tuesday 2025, Easy Rider Study and the Cross Industry Study "How do we want to live in 10 years? (references in the Wikipedia article).
http://www.foresightacademy.com/ We also consider it worth mentioning that several leading universities are involved in the application within research projects and in discussions and methodological reflection of this concept: Goethe University Frankfurt (Prof. Dr. Andreas Hackethal, Prof. Dr. Jan Landwehr), University of St. Gallen (Prof. Dr. Andreas Herrmann, Prof. Dr. Johanna Gollenhofer) - or the contributions by Prof. Dr. Jan Oliver Schwarz from the ESB Business School Reutlingen or Prof. Dr. Johann Füller (University of Innsbruck) or Prof. Dr. Alexander Hahn from Technische Hochschule Nürnberg. We hope that some of the mentioned publications and scholars and the mentioned organizations and use cases help understanding, why we argue that the article "Trend Receiver" represents an added value for the encyclopedia and should be available to interested readers for further reading and editing/improvement. With kind regards Methodenforschung (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| [spill the beans] || 06:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it’s worth mentioning that there are two more references (one is from 2018, one from 2020), which we found by recent online research: 1. The article “Brand management and the world of the arts: collaboration, co-operation, co-creation and inspiration” (Baumgarth, 2018, p.239) refers to the Trend Receiver Concept. It quotes this concept as an example of the use of arts, artists and artistic techniques to gain customer insights and a deep understanding of the past, present and future. 2. The Foresight Academy, a cross-industry platform which includes 12 major companies such as Allianz, Lego, adidas and Ferrero, has published two handbooks and information about research processes and methodology on its website. Within the described processes it applies and quotes the Trend Receiver concept (see https://www.foresightacademy.com/cont/10574) We have added these references to the text.Methodenforschung (talk) 08:29, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Wilding (director)[edit]

Anna Wilding (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have been working on cleaning this article up as most of it was unreferenced, or referenced to press releases and promotional materials. I've added some reliable references but noticed there is barely any substantial reliable sources. I went to move it to Anna Wilding and noticed the article had been deleted several times before, and has been salted. -- haminoon (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pinging User:Swatjester and User:Jreferee per WP:SALT -- haminoon (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there is enough to reach the notability treshhold, but the article is poor and needs a rewrite. The is more online about her on a number of reliable sites - although there is also a lot of self promotion which is logical NealeFamily (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:* KeepI also think it should be kept, just needs a re-write. As for the previous deletions and SALT under Anna Wilding, those are from 2007, 2011 then Salted in 2012. A lot appears to have happen since then including being a White House correspondent/photographer of Obama and her national solo photography exhibit on him. Think she meets WP:GNG for stuff shes done, so it just needs to be fixed and then an eye kept on it to stop it becoming promotional again, instead of actually being deleted. NZFC(talk)(cont) 10:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but please note that it was not a national exhibition. Some of the claims that previously appeared on the article are pretty wild. -- haminoon (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True and I should have been more careful looking into it but it does appear that is more the issue with the article than it needing to be deleted.NZFC(talk)(cont) 20:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am less and less sure now going through the article that she is notable and more that she is just excellent at getting into the papers. About the best things she has done was the White House photographer and the one film and I originally said she was notable under WP:GNG but am now changing my vote to delete instead after going through each reference more carefully.NZFC(talk)(cont) 10:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously notable - the quality of the article is not grounds for deletion. This article has been the subject of excessive templates and vandalism and still contains far too many "citation required". This should be a "SNOW". The purpose of templates is to identify a number of areas for improvement but this article has a fact, followed by a reference, followed by "citation required". The article could be improved by removing even more of these templates as well as improving an emphasis on facts. Victuallers (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I don't think she meets the notability bar, including as a photographer. I don't have any objection to un-salting the original page if the outcome of this is to keep; however I suspect you'll end up running into the same vandalism issues if it is kept. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Extra consensus, noting one user has changed their view on keeping the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 07:47, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smilebox[edit]

Smilebox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Multiple previous article instances were deleted between 2007 and 2015, though none of these reached AfD. The present instance began as a declined AfC but was moved into mainspace by the article creator. The article references are predominantly financial transaction announcements and product announcements (most recently, the two uses of the firm's June 2020 PR announcement with Vonage), both of which fall under Trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, for which DGG's comments in reviewing the declined AfC still seem appropriate. A 2012 PCWorld review of the company's slideshow product has been added since, but I don't see that or other coverage found in searches (e.g. a PCMag UK 2018 screenshot item) as sufficient to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Legalife103: There is evidence off-wiki to support my claim above and I'm happy to share those details with an admin if required. GSS 💬 14:39, 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. ST47 (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Swarupananda Paramhansa[edit]

Swami Swarupananda Paramhansa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of importance to be included in Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. - The9Man (Talk) 06:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 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. Cabayi (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jam Urban Adventure Characters[edit]

List of Jam Urban Adventure Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As the article says, "The following is a list of characters who appear in stories that are related (however tangentially) to the Jammer,". The sources are self-published and merely prove existence. I do not conside this encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:59, 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. ST47 (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz Stevens[edit]

Chaz Stevens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional paid editing. The many refs are either self-authored or represent the subjects other attempts at promotionalism. Some newspapers apparently tolerate this, but WP is an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:01, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Party LiveLine[edit]

Party LiveLine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy radio program notability guidelines, at least as written. Has already been moved into draft space as undersourced by User:Noq twice. Continuing that alternative to deletion would be move-warring. Google search shows that it exists, and that it advertises itself. We knew that. No third-party coverage obvious, and no independent coverage referenced in article.

Concern was raised by reviewer about conflict of interest, and tag was applied. Submitter removed tag rather than discussing the tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 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)  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 07:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Liberation (album)[edit]

Animal Liberation (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:GNG, has had no citations since it was created 14 years ago, hasn't had any content additions in 14 years (though editors have added wikilinks and an infobox [39]), and is basically complete original research (because of lack of citations). I can't be sure, but I don't even think it's a music album. Maybe this content belongs in some other article (maybe PETA, Animal liberation movement, or even Dan Mathews), but as best I can tell it doesn't qualify for a standalone article. Normal Op (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you, Doomsdayer520, should familiarize yourself with WP:No original research (a core content policy) and WP:No personal attacks before insulting me as not doing this week what no one else had done for this article in 14 years! You should look at the version of the article I encountered before everyone started working on it after AfD was started. Now that people who care about this article have shown up and improved the article (though I notice you haven't), the article can stick around per WP:The Heymann Standard. But if no one cared then the non-sourced OR article would get deleted by default. So, if all you have to contribute to AfD discussions is to insult nominators for not performing well enough to your standards what you weren't willing to do yourself, hadn't done, and neither had anyone else, then you should consider staying away from AfD discussions lest you run off more editors. At least my contribution has resulted in an improved encyclopedia; your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off. Recognize that AfDs are not competitions, are not inherently adversarial, and can (and often do) result in improvements to Wikipedia. Normal Op (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no personal attack, and Doomsdayer wasn't even close to advocating original research. Don't be ridiculous. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to Josh Milburn for serving as a voice of reason. If a recommendation to become familiar with some policies is a "personal attack", I would love to see how Normal Op reacts to something that is truly insulting. It would probably be to write yet another giant paragraph that consumes far more time than simply improving the article in question. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 17:11, 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. Cabayi (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah V[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hannah V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC, multitagged since 2017, no improv Staszek Lem (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:04, 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. Although this is another AfD where the weighting of !votes depends on the precise meaning of "presumed notable", the argument that the subject meets WP:NPOL has not been rebutted, nor has the existence of verifiable information (which may nonetheless fall short of GNG standards). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Beattie[edit]

Adam Beattie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does it say? Mztourist (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more discussion on the WP:POLITICIAN criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:BIO states under Additional Criteria: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Passing WP:POL is not conclusive. Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Bench Creations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Stone Bench Creations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company does not seem to have received any significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The article is seems to exist to promote the brand and work of a company that does not meet our notability standards. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I see that you have answered your own question, and I think I agree with you. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Our standard is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. A newspaper may be reliable for certain topics and less reliable for others. Each reference must be reviewed on it's own merit. You can defend an AfD by showing good quality sources to attest to the notability of a subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of the references in the article meet the criteria required and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, you get the logic wrong. The notability guideline means that if some criteria are satisfied then the subject is notable. However is the criteria are not satisfied, we are open for further discussion, because there cannot be possible 100% coverage by the Rule Book. In this particular case, if the company produces many films and these films are reviewed (and even have Wikipedia articles!), certainly the company deserves coverage. Compare this with professors. We judge professors by their professional output and how this output is judged by peers, and not by how much "in depth" biographical information about that professor can be found in a single taken article. Typically there is none, with the exception of really exceptional people. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Staszek Lem, that's not correct, references must meet both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Also, take a look at WP:NOTINHERITED. No company "deserves" coverage. They're either notable or not and we have guidelines which tell us the criteria for establishing whether or not a company is notable. Other guidelines exist (e.g. WP:BLP) for other topic areas and have different criteria. HighKing++ 15:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're either notable or not -- Once again you fail to recognize your logical error. Let me be more detailed. The policy says " An organization is generally considered NOTABLE if it....". It does NOT say "An organization is considered NONNOTABLE if it....." Meaning tghat your "or not" is not based on the policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • YOu are alkso confused about "NOTINHERITED". The guideline says "merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. This is usually phrased as "____ is notable, because it is associated with " THe porduction house is not "merely associated" -- films it pproduced are it MAIN reason for life and notability.COntinuing my analogy with professors: they are notable because of trheir WORK. They ARE their work. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Staszek Lem, just to summarise, you didn't push back on references needing to meet both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND but you push back on the argument that none of the references meet the criteria. You say that references about the founder or the movies are implicitly also about the company and that NOTINHERITED doesn't apply because your interpretation of "associated with" falls short of the relationship between the company and the founder/movies. I disagree for the reasons I've already set out above which are the most common interpretations at every NCORP AfD. HighKing++ 17:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't give a damn about this company, so I am stopping here. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:56, 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 keep. Cabayi (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanair Flight 4102[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ryanair Flight 4102 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable aviation incident. WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to List of accidents and incidents involving the_Boeing 737#737 Next_Generation (-600/-700/-800/-900) aircraft where it is already mentioned, not particularly noteworthy on its own IMO as no deaths occurred. Also citing from the WP:AIRCRASH essay suggests the following: For airline and large civil aircraft, a listing of notable aircraft incidents and accidents, where appropriate. Accidents or incidents should only be included in aircraft articles if ... The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport which suggests to me that this particular article isn't notable enough as a standalone article. Nightfury 20:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change of vote to keep per below. Nightfury 10:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 20:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:27, 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 and move to A Cubic Mile of Oil. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cubic mile of oil[edit]

Cubic mile of oil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any evidence of notability. Only one of the cited sources I checked (IEEE Spectrum) wasn't either primary self-published. A search turned up references to the book by the same name, but nothing on the subject itself. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One more source [2]--Salix alba (talk): 14:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just note that if we do move it, someone needs to do the work of modifying the article. Maybe that's just re-writing the first sentence, I don't know. But I'm not volunteering. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Energy use answers can be found in a cubic mile of oil". 6 October 2010. Retrieved 2020-10-14 – via The Globe and Mail. (Note paywalled, you can only view it on first visit)
  2. ^ "Full Page Reload". IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News. Retrieved 2020-10-14.
  3. ^ Dolbear, Geoffrey E. (July 2011). "[No title found]". Fuel. 90 (7): 2553. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2011.03.004.
  4. ^ Speight, James (2011-04-13). "Book Review: Cubic Mile of Oil". Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects. 33 (12): 1209–1209. doi:10.1080/15567036.2011.552333. ISSN 1556-7036.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dacia Sandero. (non-admin closure)  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 07:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dacia Sandero III[edit]

Dacia Sandero III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary, the previous generation Sanderos didn't need a separate article. They can add any further information on the main article. Vauxford (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like it should be redirected. Toasted Meter (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:18, 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.
More