< 25 September	27 September >

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of Russia[edit]

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

Delete. This page is pointless. All of Russia's individual border's now have their own page. This is just a list of Russian subdivisions with no useful additional information. I would recommended deleting it. WisDom-UK (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, contains information not conveyed by a category. Geschichte (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. The 'Borders of Russia' NavBox provides the links one needs. General Russian geography info can go on Geography of Russia.WisDom-UK (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article fits well into a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE structure (Russia >> Borders of Russia >> Individual Border Articles) and as a list of borders meets WP:CLN. I will do some work on the article to help it function better as CLN. // Timothy :: talk 21:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it does, but then you'd need to that for every country for consistencies sake.WisDom-UK (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Timothy. Dream Focus 21:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, – Per above, although some of the information exist in other pages, but this article can be used as a summary. Alex-h (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Alex and Timothy. Pamzeis (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite useful --Devokewater (talk) 13:14, 3 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. Canley (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of Indonesia[edit]

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

Delete All of Indonesia's borders have their own page. This poor quality and overly-long article can be deleted. WisDom-UK (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: Article fits well into a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE structure (Country>> Borders of Country >> Individual Border Articles) and as a list of borders meets WP:CLN. I will do some work on the article to help it function better as CLN. // Timothy :: talk 21:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic. Zoozaz1 talk 18:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of India[edit]

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

Delete. All of India's borders have their own page. This poor quality article can be deleted. WisDom-UK (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 06:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consistency, the encyclopedia has articles like this for all nations. See Category:Borders by country. Your reason for deletion appears to be you don't believe its needed and you don't like the quality of it. Neither of these are valid reasons for deletion. Dream Focus 12:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back. The page you link is misleading - it is a list of categories. The number of 'Borders of Country X' is actually very small, almost all which are poor quality. There are however hundreds of 'Country A - Country B border' pages, which is where the vast majority of editing takes place.WisDom-UK (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Categories that lead to many articles like this. List are always more useful than categories, allowing far more information to be shown. Dream Focus 17:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, contains information not conveyed by a category. Geschichte (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very informative content, so it should be kept -- Padavalam🌂 ► 10:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe the article can be pruned some more so that it would appear nothing more than a specific article listing borders of India but there is no reason to delete. Orientls (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no policy/guideline-backed deletion reason is provided in the nomination. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Highly informative article and clearly passes GNG. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:55, 4 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. Canley (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of Malaysia[edit]

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

Delete All of Malaysia's borders have their own page. This (unsourced) page is redundant and should be deleted. WisDom-UK (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like the many other articles like this, its best to have all the borders listed in one article, then link to more specific information in separate articles as necessary. Any redundant information can be trimmed down. Dream Focus 21:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article fits well into a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE structure (Country>> Borders of Country >> Individual Border Articles) and as a list of borders meets WP:CLN. I will do some work on the article to help it function better as CLN. // Timothy :: talk 21:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic. Zoozaz1 talk 18:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of China[edit]

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

Delete. All of China's borders have their own page. This redundant, short article can be deleted. WisDom-UK (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, contains information not conveyed by a category. Geschichte (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. The 'Borders of China' NavBox provides the links one needs. General Chinese geography info can go on Geography of China.WisDom-UK (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, more information here than in a category or template. WP:CLN is quite clear, you don't delete one because you like another better. Also please stop nominating so many border articles, just wait and see the results for the ones you already have nominated. Dream Focus 21:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article fits well into a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE structure (Country>> Borders of Country >> Individual Border Articles) and as a list of borders meets WP:CLN. I will do some work on the article to help it function better as CLN. // Timothy :: talk 21:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's 200 countries in the world, about maybe 20 of them have a 'Borders of X' page on Wiki. That's a hell of a lot of work, unless we're going to oikc and choose which countries 'deserve' a page. Seems like a colossal waste of time and and space to me, when the individual border pages are far more useful.WisDom-UK (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Zoozaz1 talk 18:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of Azerbaijan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete All of Azerbaijan's borders have separate pages. This short page is redundant and offer nothing of value, and should therefore be deleted. WisDom-UK (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article fits well into a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE structure (Azerbaijan >> Borders of Azerbaijan >> Individual Border Articles) and as a list of borders meets WP:CLN. // Timothy :: talk 20:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it does, but then you'd need to that for every country for consistencies sake.WisDom-UK (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of these articles the nominator is mass nominating should be kept for the same reasons Timothy just stated. Dream Focus 21:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable topic. Zoozaz1 talk 18:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaithanya Kumar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. I have checked each of the referenes for variations of the actor's name. I have only found passing mentions or zero mention. When he passes our notability criteria he may have an article. WP:TOOSOON Fiddle Faddle 22:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 22:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 22:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 22:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 22:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails significant appearances in the filmography. In general fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:ENTERTAINER and seems WP:PROMOTIONAL --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 14:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 2 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 06:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Byrne (sailor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only one primary source - not reliable. Did WP:BEFORE, nothing came up. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Competed at the Olympics, per WP:NOLY, with some further coverage here and here. Also this lists him as being the first State Champion for Victoria, and something he won again six years later. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 11:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:SPORTBASIC for summer Olympics appearances. --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 14:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. For posterity/due diligence, checked the three listed sources as well. Does not appear in Newport Revisited or Edith Wharton's Social Register, and the third book does not appear in WorldCat. czar 02:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Jane Barney[edit]

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

The article is about Laura Jane Barney who, apparently, married a son of the financier Charles Barney (though, except for various wikis, no source seems to exist for this) and none of the other stuff on this page is verifiable. Possible hoax (a New York socialite never mentioned in The NY Times -impossible!), possible non-notable individual. Either way, unless sources can be found, it should be deleted RegentsPark (comment) 22:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax unless some reliable evidence of her existence is uncovered. I can't find anything. pburka (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creator had about a dozen edits, almost all of them either of this page or of the Barney Page. We really need to stop allowing people to create articles with under 50 edits. Actually, we really should make all new articles go through AfC, but in either case the current system is not working. Hoaxes should not last for 13 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 2 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mediassociates[edit]

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

A rare disclosed paid editor created this article in 2016. A lot of promotional material was lopped off nearly immediately, and unfortunately what is left does not demonstrate notability. Most of it is about the columns written by one of the company's officials—whose name isn't mentioned in the article body, and in which case the articles do not even mention Mediassociates itself. There's nothing here beyond coatracking about the state of programmatic advertising, the Businessweek columns, and non-notable awards. I struggle to see this meeting WP:CORP. Raymie (t • c) 21:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 21:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 21:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 21:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, PR --Devokewater (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are strange as they hardly mention about the company (Bloomberg's apple reference). Also, its not clear how the company is notable. A desperate attempt to make a company notable which is not. --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 14:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per norm. This is a PR effort trying to game the system. Northern Escapee (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Camp Junction, Missouri[edit]

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor Junction, Missouri, this is the road junction from U.S. Route 65 in Missouri toward Cole Camp, Missouri, not a community. [1], [2], [3] etc. Reywas92^Talk 21:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 21:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 21:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I actually looked at this one earlier. Just a road junction. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into county entry per my post on Sagrada: there's no reason why a suitably-motivated person wouldn't be capable of finding out more about the place, the GNIS entry and historical records pretty reliably establish that the place does/did exist, obviously not a hoax or contentious in any way -- nobody's going to get misled by this article existing whether it's an article unto itself or a subsection of another page. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it would probably have been better to BUNDLE these nominations, since they all proceed from the same general premises, and arguments that are valid for one will be valid similarly for the others. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong, please see WP:GNIS for just a few of the many, many examples where the GNIS inaccurately labeled something as "populated place". A populated place is still not automatically a notable community either. There is nothing worth mentioning in the county article about this; what is misleading is undue weight about a road junction or small neighborhood. Reywas92^Talk 22:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nominator is correct. This does not pass our notability guidelines for WP:GEOLAND Wm335td (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel S. Freedman[edit]

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

This article seems to confuse two lawyers named Samuel S. Freedman — the lawyer who assisted Thurgood Marshall as depicted in Marshall and a person who lived between 1927 and 2012. With the first Freedman, I've only found articles detailing his role in the case depicted in Marshall. With the second, I've found only the obituary used as the source of the article. I don't believe either meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. Jedzz (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I expanded the article; Samuel Freedman's obituary mentioned that he served in the Connecticut General Assembly. The Connecticut General Assembly database also mentioned he served in the state legislature. State legislators are notable. Thank yoou-RFD (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note There were two incorrect incoming links that I removed. Someone had confused the two lawyers (they were both based in Connecticut and had similar names), but this article itself has not mixed them. The other lawyer (Samuel Friedman with an "i") does not have an article and is probably not notable like the nominator said. -kyykaarme (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RFD passes WP:NPOL --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 14:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Connecticut General Assembly. --Enos733 (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep our current guidelines is that everyone who ever served in the top level sub-national unit legislature in a federal Republic is default notable. Considering New Hampshire has over 400 members in its House of Representatives I am not sure this rule was developed while considering how many people it makes default notable, but it is the rule, and we should not change it to exclude an article on one person who served in the legislature in Connecticut.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NPOL. Freedman served as a member of a Connecticut General Assembly. Lefcentreright ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 10:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor Junction, Missouri[edit]

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

More mass-produced junk: Lots of sources in newspapers.com call it – guess what? – a road junction! It's where you turn off highway 65 onto 52 toward Windsor, Missouri, not a community itself. [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. This at least uses it as a landmark in a Cole Camp, Missouri address. Reywas92^Talk 21:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 21:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 21:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly just a road junction. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into county entry per my post on Sagrada: there's no reason why a suitably-motivated person wouldn't be capable of finding out more about the place, the GNIS entry and historical records pretty reliably establish that the place does/did exist, obviously not a hoax or contentious in any way -- nobody's going to get misled by this article existing whether it's an article unto itself or a subsection of another page. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it would probably have been better to BUNDLE these nominations, since they all proceed from the same general premises, and arguments that are valid for one will be valid similarly for the others. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong, please see WP:GNIS for just a few of the many, many examples where the GNIS inaccurately labeled something as "populated place". A populated place is still not automatically a notable community either. There is nothing worth mentioning in the county article about this; what is misleading is undue weight about a junction or small neighborhood. Reywas92^Talk 22:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable road junction. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GEOLAND per nom. and Hog Farm Paul H. (talk) 19:05, 7 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. Izno (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maropost[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:NCORP. Was speedily deleted twice already. Sources are not independent or reliable significant coverage: [8] says: "This post was contributed by a community member".

[9] perhaps a generally reliable source, but flawed reporting according to the subject. It's about a non-event, but gives the subject the chance to talk about how their security practices are better than they appeared.

[10] written by Nathan Chan Foundr CEO and, according to his bio: "widely respected as one of the brightest minds of his generation". To be featured in foundr, people can click on a gigantic red button that screams: APPLY NOW!

[11] The 2018 Canadian Technology Fast 50™ is not a notable award.

[12] is a press release

[13] is a repost of [14] a blog about influencers and social media. The article is about an appartment Paquette and his girlfriend bought in Östermalm Oddly, it's the source the creator used to source "Ross Andrew Paquette founded Maropost Inc. in 2011 as a customer-centric ESP"

[15] is an article by Paquette

[16] is the only source that appears to be independent, reliable and written by editorial staff at Bloomberg. That's ONE source. Vexations (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detail review but I think Deloitte Fast 50 is a notable award. Like Bloomberg reference, there are many independent sources available. I will try to improve it. Renaglain (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilda, Benton County, Missouri[edit]

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

GNIS is sourced to a 1919 (non-topo) map called the New World War Chart, although it's not mentioned by the rather comprehensive state historical society source. Pre-GNIS topos do not show a Hilda, although the coordinates are near Mount Hulda, Missouri. 1969 county history makes no mention of a Hilda. Newer topos show Hilda, but not Mount Hulda. Since the SHS society states that Mount Hulda was formerly known as Hulda, it looks like what probably happened is that the 1919 map made an error and it was then copied into GNIS. Within the last 20 years, the topos were just made with the town names copied from GNIS. So essentially, one 1919 map and GNIS are the only things stating that a Hilda in Benton County ever existed. Given that nobody besides GNIS and the many bot-generated websites trawling GNIS state that Hilda ever existed, I don't think a merge or redirect to Mount Hulda is worth it. Clear GNIS screwup. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:GEOLAND as a populated, legally recognized place. Also does not have sourcing to pass WP:N Wm335td (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into county entry per my post on Sagrada: there's no reason why a suitably-motivated person wouldn't be capable of finding out more about the place, the GNIS entry and historical records pretty reliably establish that the place does/did exist, obviously not a hoax or contentious in any way -- nobody's going to get misled by this article existing whether it's an article unto itself or a subsection of another page. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it would probably have been better to BUNDLE these nominations, since they all proceed from the same general premises, and arguments that are valid for one will be valid similarly for the others. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - @JPxG: I've found no clear and convincing evidence this ever actually existed. It appears to be a data entry error. Hog Farm _Bacon 11:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - so I am unsure why we would merge. Wm335td (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:GEOLAND Paul H. (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Branch, Missouri[edit]

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

Seems to be some sort of lakeside resort, not a town [17]. In the article are GNIS, which does a poor job of classifying what type of entity a name represents, a highway map, which seems to show a bunch of RV parks and stuff, and a source that is referring to a creek, not a town. Mostly only finding passing mentions of a Blue Branch Road, which goes through a lakeside RV park-type thing. In no way passes WP:GNG, and I'm finding no evidence this was a legally recognized community, which would pass WP:GEOLAND. Possibly part of White Branch, Missouri or Warsaw, Missouri. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:GEOLAND as a populated, legally recognized place Wm335td (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into county entry per my post on Sagrada: there's no reason why a suitably-motivated person wouldn't be capable of finding out more about the place, the GNIS entry and historical records pretty reliably establish that the place does/did exist, obviously not a hoax or contentious in any way -- nobody's going to get misled by this article existing whether it's an article unto itself or a subsection of another page. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it would probably have been better to BUNDLE these nominations, since they all proceed from the same general premises, and arguments that are valid for one will be valid similarly for the others. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong, please see WP:GNIS for just a few of the many, many examples where the GNIS inaccurately labeled something as "populated place". A populated place is still not automatically a notable community either. There is nothing worth mentioning in the county article about this; what is misleading is undue weight about a resort or RV park. Reywas92^Talk 22:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity Farms, Missouri[edit]

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

While I can find nothing stating that this is a real community, the early topos show a church camp on the site. The association with the church camp is made clearer by [18]. See also this from the organization that runs it and possibly a nearby camp. As a church camp, it has to pass WP:GNG, which it doesn't seem to. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:GEOLAND as a populated, legally recognized place. Does not have sourcing to pass WP:N. Appears to have possibly been a farm/camp of no notability. Wm335td (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Newspaper results are about the Mission above and this unrelated ad. No evidence of being a community, and a name on a highway map should not be sufficient to mass-produce such junk. Reywas92^Talk 21:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into county entry per my post on Sagrada: there's no reason why a suitably-motivated person wouldn't be capable of finding out more about the place, the GNIS entry and historical records pretty reliably establish that the place does/did exist, obviously not a hoax or contentious in any way -- nobody's going to get misled by this article existing whether it's an article unto itself or a subsection of another page. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it would probably have been better to BUNDLE these nominations, since they all proceed from the same general premises, and arguments that are valid for one will be valid similarly for the others. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong, please see WP:GNIS for just a few of the many, many examples where the GNIS inaccurately labeled something as "populated place". A populated place is still not automatically a notable community either. There is nothing worth mentioning in the county article about this; what is misleading is undue weight about a generic farm or church camp. Reywas92^Talk 22:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable camp. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I found the web page for the site itself, which makes it clear it is somewhere between a homeless shelter and retreat house. I'm not convinced that there is enough non-local coverage of the parent organization to justify an article on it, but it's clear that this single facility doesn't make the grade: the first page of hits for it are all on the organization website. Mangoe (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, A local place without significant coverage does not meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Izno (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 European heat wave[edit]

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

WP:SYNTHESIS of anecdotal weather reports. No strong effects or WP:LASTING significance. No national records broken. Not as notable as 2018 or 2019 which broke national records for heat by night and day. RandomIntrigue (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems a documented weather event. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and as a "survivor" myself. This seems a clear example of WP:RECENTISM. A few scattered articles saying "it was quite hot" is never going to pass WP:GNG. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor event. Geschichte (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS. (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 4 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 19:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic leash[edit]

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

Not a notable concept / likely WP:OR. This article isn't about wireless shock collars for dogs, but about finding wireless devices. No useful sources; the three references are a dead page about Bluetooth Low Energy, and two trademark offices claiming the term is not trademarked. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge There's a broad concept here that's also covered by articles including electronic article surveillance; electronic tagging, geo-fence and specific technologies such as Bluetooth, Tile; &c. We should find a sensible alternative to deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, the article contents are similar to notable topics which already have articles, but is there any evidence whatsoever the term "electronic leash" is in use for anything other than dog collars? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to being to generic of a term and not having any products that based on it. Except for maybe Bluetooth as a general implementation of "electronic leash" like technology with some of the things it's used for, but that aside this is to vague of a concept, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and the article is way to original research heavy anyway. To the point where if you got rid of it all the article would be is a basic definition of the term and sentence about there not being any products that use it. Which totally isn't worth an article. It's not even worth merging. Otherwise, what are you going to do, merge "for the generic term of electronic leash no US trade mark[2] nor UK trade mark[3] is valid or otherwise pending for this generic term of product" into some random place in the Bluetooth article? Because that's the only thing that's referenced. Not likely. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Topic is overly broad and ill defined and the content of the article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH from other related concepts. // Timothy :: talk 16:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I've been pondering what to do with this for a while as part of my buzzword cleanup efforts. Now that I've read through this AfD I agree it's not actually a distinct topic, but a hodgepodge of stuff that' s already covered elsewhere. I don't see much use for this. Reyk _YO! 18:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It’s got nothing new, I agree with above, does not meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Aurobindo's Rourkela School[edit]

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

The article does not meet GNG or WP:ORG. Source in the article and BEFORE showed only database style listings, brief mentions, and sites that do not meet WP:IS. // Timothy :: talk 19:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 12:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per what is said in WP:NSCHOOL. WP:NORG or WP:GNG fail. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 08:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mz7 (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Art Directors Guild Award for Excellence in Production Design for a Animated Film[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV / WP:IS that addresses the topic directly and in depth. Unreferenced and too detailed for merge to Art Directors Guild. WP:NOTEVERYTHING // Timothy :: talk 20:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue, isn't Art Directors Guild Award for Excellence in Production Design for a Animated Film a subtopic of ADG Excellence in Production Design Award where it could easily be merged to? And wouldn't it be inconsistent to delete it but not Art Directors Guild Award for Excellence in Production Design for a Feature Film or any of the other articles in Category:Art_Directors_Guild_Awards? Vexations (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: here's my thinking

The noms and winners are listed in the lists for the individual years. There are sources that discuss the awards each year along with the nominees and winners.
The winners are listed under Animated Film in ADG Excellence in Production Design Award. There are sources that discuss this particular award category.

So the information is already in one or two lists. So there is nothing to merge to those spots. The nominees could be duplicated in ADG Excellence in Production Design Award, but I think that would reduce the quality of that list and the information already exists by year. The years in this article could be linked to the award by year articles.

I can't find WP:RS that are independent that discuss the individual award categories within the ADG Excellence in Production Design Award directly and in-depth. It is mentioned in relation to the award.

I only other option would be to merge (along with the others) into Art Directors Guild, but I think that's too detailed.

// Timothy :: talk 22:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At a glance, it looks like there's some duplication between the main award page, which lists winners, the yearly awards pages, and the award-specific pages. The award-specific pages aren't the problem, though. The redundant bit is that the main award page shouldn't have a comprehensive list of winners. Think about what readers are most likely looking for: a specific award or a specific year. If any statistics, the main award page should be used for, say, awards over time (who has won the most, etc.). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If nothing else, this article needs to be moved to a corrected title -- it should be "an Animated Film", not "a Animated Film". (The Guild doesn't actually use the full award title here in its rules. [19]) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete normally I'd go with a merge or redirect, since this seems like useless duplication but is still a thing, but in this case I don't think either option works because of the reasons given by TimothyBlue. There's no point in just keeping the article when it's a duplicate of other ones though.--Adamant1 (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philippa Collins[edit]

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

Non-notable presenter. Only refs are passing comments. No further information found. Funky Snack (Talk | Contribs) 17:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about her. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable radio presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 13:15, 3 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 06:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DragonLord Enterprises, Inc.[edit]

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

Fails GNG due to lack of RS coverage. Sourcing currently consists of A) cell phone manuals with footnotes listing DragonLord as a copyright owner, and B) articles about phones that mention games but make no mention of DragonLord. Searches did not return any useable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 16:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Messehalle. Izno (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Messehallen[edit]

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

"Messehalle" is German for any (trade fair) exhibition hall. The claim that this name is specific to the referenced Hamburg Messe has not been proven. An article for Hamburg Messe exists already. Aeroid (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the title sounds fairly generic and not too specific to Hamburg, but Special:Prefixindex/Messehallen tells us that the only thing other than these halls that is called Messehallen is the relevant metro station, Messehallen (Hamburg U-Bahn station). For the moment, I think it is enough to have an article on Hamburg Messe and one on the metro station, and to redirect this title to the station. —Kusma (t·c) 13:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Special:Prefixindex/Messehalle (singular, "-n" is plural) shows more. Maybe redirect "Messehallen" to "Messehalle" and disambigute the latter.--Aeroid (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Works for me. —Kusma (t·c) 22:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done: Messehalle is now a disambiguation. It was a redirect to the one in Sindelfingen. Also removed tons of wrong links to it, which really should have linked to the ones in Erfurt, Dresden or Leipzig. There are no articles (and I doubt there should be) for those, so these are commented out in the disambiguation list.--Aeroid (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Izno (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Stand (2006 film)[edit]

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

So this film was tagged for notability in 2016. I wanted to much to find something to support its notability, after all, Kevin Hart is in it, but WP:NOTINHERITED. The cited references do not pass WP:NFILM. I couldn't find anything other than lots of passing mentions that Kevin Hart was in the film. Can anyone help save this article by finding citations to remove the tag? Donaldd23 (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Surprisingly, I couldn't find even one review or article on the film. Rotten Tomatoes shows a critic review that looks like it might have been substantial, but it's a dead link that isn't showing on the Wayback Machine. Newspapers.com only included theater listings. SL93 (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned by SL93 there are no findable reviews.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 1 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 17:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Paul[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Besides this BuzzFeed article which is already in the article, the only other coverage in reliable sources I could find is this Telegraph article. Also fails WP:1EVENT as the only coverage of him is about his role in the creation of CelebHeights. LewisMCYoutube (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LewisMCYoutube (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not quite yet pass WP:GNG. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. KidAd talk 18:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would be a tall order to keep this one. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree with the comments above that the subject (as the moment at any rate) does not have the notability that would be needed to justify their having an article. Dunarc (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Colonia (A Camp album). (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Love Has Left the Room[edit]

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

Colonia (A Camp album) is a possible WP:ATD, but I don't see this meeting WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. Taking to AfD to check as aware there is a bias on non-English articles. Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither (as article creator): I never particularly liked this song, so have no real desire to expand it myself. But from a cursory search of Google News, here's an entire paragraph of Stuart Murdoch of Belle and Sebastian talking about the song, and I'm sure enough of these Swedish reviews could be utilized to make at least a Start-class article. And I don't think Colonia (A Camp album) is worthy of an AfD. It currently has 21 sources, including international reviews, charts and certifications, and could be greatly expanded using the latter link I included above. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting Colonia is deleted, but that this article could be redirected to Colonia as an alternative to deletion. Boleyn (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Colonia (A Camp album): Barely found anything about the song aside from being briefly discussed in a Pitchfork article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Colonia (A Camp album). Fails WP:NSONG – English-language bias is unlikely to be much of an issue here, as the song was only released as a single in the UK and Ireland, so there won't be reviews in other countries. And of the Swedish reviews of the album that I've checked so far, none of them even mention the song, never mind talk about it in detail, so it doesn't look like even a start-class article will be possible. Richard3120 (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl Thief[edit]

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

This film was tagged for notability in February. It has 3 citations listed, but none are linked to view online. I trust that they are legitimate, especially since the film is 110 years old and tough to verify. However, I've been down this road before...if I remove the notability tag, the editor (or another editor) will just put it back. Notability tags shouldn't last forever...in my opinion they shouldn't be used at all, if you don't think an article is notable just put it up for deletion and that will solve it...but I digress.

So, instead of going through that "edit war" of removing/adding the tag again, I figured I would put it up for deletion and see if others agree that the film is notable (and the tag should go) or if it isn't notable (and the article should go.) Thanks. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and provisional keep. This looks like a rehash of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fisherman's Granddaughter. Source publications are identical; director of the film is the same; I assume the same person wrote both articles. I don't have time to find URLs for the sources listed here, but I would be very surprised if they weren't precise analogues of the reviews for that article: short, but definitely SIGCOV, in multiple, well-known publications of the time. So I'm saying "provisional keep" because I haven't yet tracked down the sources, but I'm positive they're genuine. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found the Moving Picture World review and the Variety review on the Internet Archive, along with a detailed description from The Film Index, a contemporary publication that described movies so that exhibitors would know what to order. Donaldd23, you should check out the vast film magazine archives that the Internet Archive offers. They have searchable issues of all the old film magazines, including Variety, Motion Picture World, The Film Daily, Motion Picture Herald, Moving Picture World, etc. You can source reviews for pretty much any American movie made in the first half of the twentieth century, including short subjects. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and good work Toughpigs. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and thank you to ToughPigs. The inability of editors to click on a citation and view it is not grounds for an article's deletion. I would understand if it just said "Variety" and "Motion Picture World," but these were good citations and the nominator could have asked someone -- other editors, librarians -- for help researching. If the nominator isn't comfortable removing the tag, then they should move on to other articles rather than ignore their gut instinct that the film is notable. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion and in the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 2 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 Cincinnati City Council. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laketa Cole[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cincinnati City Council. Despite serving in some borderline notable positions (member of the Cincinnati City Council and Public Utilities Commission of Ohio), she has not received significant coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 18:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to delete the article; she isn't all that notable. I think I mostly created this article way back when because I was trying to figure out how to make a new wiki page. Nate Wessel (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here, There and Anymore[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. A friend reviewed it; doesn't make it notable. Boleyn (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of anything that would meet WP:NALBUM. I would suggest a redirect to the musician's page, but I don't think it will pass its own AfD discussion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Connors[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Has had some success, is friends with someone successful. Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:NOTINHERITED. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as G4, G11. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj D Ramola[edit]

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

A film industry professional, but not notable. Wrote a book, of which there is very little coverage. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't appear to meet either WP:CREATIVE or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robotshop[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is based almost entirely on press releases and corporation filings. Could not find significant independent coverage of Robotshop. –dlthewave ☎ 14:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly an advert article and lacks reliable sources. Plus, it should be deleted on WP:TNT grounds also since it would take a fundamental rewrite to present the company in a neutral none advertising way. Although, it's unlikely it could be re-written in accordance with the guidelines given the lack of reliable sourcing. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RobotShop is a leader in its industry and the coverage with the previously suggested sources that were identified as not sufficiently independent was not to do any wrong doing. I think by changing sources to other independent sources available and adding others reliable sources in this article makes the point in having a legitimate article about RobotShop company. Fmarsolais (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're confusing "Independent" to only concern itself with the independence of the publisher from the topic company. That's probably the most easily passed test. The real test for "Independent" relates to "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Can you link to WP:THREE references that meet the above criterion? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:20, 3 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Au Pair in America[edit]

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

It exists, but I could find no evidence it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cultured Magazine[edit]

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

At present, the article is supported by various links to the magazine's website (not independent), a soft soap WP:INTERVIEW with the magazine's founder in the NYT (primary), and a passing one-word mention in Pitchfork (insubstantial). I have looked for better sourcing, but found nothing but passing mentions and affiliated sources. I can't see how this passes WP:GNG, or WP:NCORP which would probably apply since it's a commercial product; there's also WP:NMAGAZINE, which is only an essay, but I can't see this passing that either based on what I can find. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, generally per nom. I see an interview in the NYT as a promising start—after all, the NYT doesn't go around publishing interviews with just anyone—but the interview is not squarely focused on the magazine, and there don't appear to be other good sources available. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, at first I thought the interview would be a good source, but as you say it's not really focussed on the magazine, and almost all of the content about the magazine is coming directly out of the mouth of its founder, meaning that it's a primary source for our purposes. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The magazine is cited in104 articles. That does not establish that the magazine is notable, but perhaps suggests that an article on this subject might be useful. In reviewing for NPP, I have always found citations to CM slightly suspicious, due to their lack of criticality and analysis. This is not a publication that has significant influence in the art world like, for example, Artforum or Art in America. For a clue: look at who's advertising there. Vexations (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vexations, I agree totally that Cultured is not a publication like Artforum or Art in America that wields significant critical influence on the art world, but would argue that neither the magazine itself nor this page make that claim. In the pages, infobox the publication's category is listed as "culture." The two quotations from Forbes Magazine and the New York Post's Page Six that describe Cultured both foreground the outfit's multidisciplinary orientation. In response to your comment, I have also rephrased the first sentence in the page's lead and the sentence that introduces the list of the magazine's past cover stars to hopefully clarify and emphasize the publication's broad interest in and understanding of culture. While the magazine is obviously no Artforum, or October for that matter, and seems to strive far more to be accessible than it does to be academic, it appears to me at least in the same league as publications like Garage Magazine, Another Magazine, Dazed Magazine, Love Magazine, and Surface Magazine, many of which have included all of the same individuals on their own covers. Also, I looked quite extensively for where I could find a list of Cultured's advertisers to no avail, and was wondering if it wasn't too much trouble if you could possibly forward where you tracked that info down to as I would love conduct a similar comparison, but look instead to more analogous publications that are aiming to cultivate a parallel image and position to Cultured, like those I mentioned above. Homogestalt (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Homogestalt, I think the point I was trying to make is that sometimes, even tough sources are scarce, a subject can be notable because it has significant impact on its field that is evidenced by our use as a source. I don't see that being the case for Cultured. So it all comes down to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The advertisers mostly just illustrative of the fact the Cultured is not an influential art magazine. Compare textezurkunst.com, who today advertise apexart, art cologne, and gegenwarten (clearly serious) to cultured.com, who advertise B&B Italia (nice furniture, I used to own one, but not quite the same category). Advertisers are mentioned in [20] by Former Contributor to Forbes, Patrick Hanlon: "Her publication Cultured, for example, has 24 spreads of advertising from brands including Cartier, Versace, Loro Piana, Luminaire as well as local furniture designers, retail shops and real estate, before we even get to the editorial masthead. The back cover is a Gucci ad." Please note that we consider Forbes contributors generally unreliable, per WP:FORBESCON. Vexations (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to search for more sources, and found nothing. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Doctor Strange[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG, overly expansive in-universe plot dump that should have been summarized in the main article per WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Doctor Strange per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. There is nothing here to merge, article is entirely OR and SYNTH. Article is a CONTENTFORK and does not meet GNG, BEFORE showed only fancruft articles. If someone ever creates content at main article that is sourced properly a redirect could be created then, but as of right now, nothing is there, everything here is OR and shouldn't be merged, so a redirect is meaningless. // Timothy :: talk 14:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just a spin-off from the main article and, insofar as it's a list of the various takes on the character, it passes WP:LISTN – see Strangest of the Strange, for example. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to volume and interestingness. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge I can see how this is redundant with the Doctor Strange article with not much to cover outside of various plot summaries and excerpts. But there has been a consistent practice to merge comic characters with similar non-notable spinouts. See the AFDs for: Gambit, Storm, Jean Grey, Venom, The Thing, and Rogue, all of which were merged or redirected. Daredevil was deleted, but that's an outlier. I'm sure I missed a few others. I think we should always strive to WP:PRESERVE and use alternatives to deletion. (Pardon the copy-paste rationale, which I used at a similar AFD for Deadpool, but the rationale is truly about consistent best practice across many similar articles). Archrogue (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Archrogue: This has been brought up already at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Mary Jane Watson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Kitty Pryde, but saying "several others were deleted" on every nomination is very poor reasoning. At least a few of these (including Alternative versions of Batman and arguably Alternative versions of Deadpool) actually have passed both WP:GNG and WP:LISTN, but were deleted purely on poorly handled nominations and bandwagon voting such as this. If there is a precedent here, it's a weak one. Dark knight 2149 07:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment above amounts to "spoiled grapes". They didn't like the consensus on previous discussions, and they're trying to use those failed arguments to impact this discussion. The consensus on the other discussions was clear. These OR/SYNTH articles are not appropriate for an article. // Timothy :: talk 07:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not spoiled grapes at all. The fact that your only responses have been "But I got them deleted! IT WORKED!" proves my point. I'm sorry if you dislike WP:LISTN or WP:GNG, but all of my concerns have been rooted both in policy, procedure, and that many of the votes have been as slim/cookie-cutter as the nominations themselves, usually from the same exact users, citing the same reasons that often boil down to WP:ITSCRUFT or WP:PERNOM.

This isn't everyone, mind you. There have been a lot of good faith users who have been voting "delete" on a lot of stuff (including stuff that should be deleted), but when at least 3-4 one-note deletionists and occasionally 1-2 one-note inclusionists are guaranteed to show up on every nomination, that isn't exactly helpful.

There have also been a tonne of nominations in the last year-and-a-half that haven't cited a valid rationale at all. For example, filing 500 nominations because "The article fails to establish notablity" or "The article is poorly written" flies in the face of both WP:DELREASON and every deletion policy/guideline on the books.

Also, don't list off policies and guidelines unless you know what they mean. Your nominations have had nothing to do with original research (making stuff up) or synthesis (claiming that two sources combine to say something they don't), they have to do with articles that primarily cite primary sources. Still bad, but hardly the same thing. Dark knight 2149 08:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- excessive minutiae about various incarnations of a fictional character. All the sources in this article are primary, and I cannot find any secondary sources that treat "Alternative versions of Doctor Strange" as a topic. At best you could find something about individual incarnations, though even that is a sketchy prospect, but combining them into one topic absolutely is WP:SYNTH. The main Doctor Strange article is already crufty enough and would not be improved by merging any of this dubious content there. Reyk _YO! 10:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Reyk: It's not synthesis. There is an editorial from a reliable news source discussing the topic right here and there are primary sources in the article. For something to be synthesis, there has to be an actual claim being made, and in this instance, it's just listing off versions of Doctor Strange.

(To be clear, I am not voting "Keep" on this nomination. I don't see enough coverage for it to pass GNG. My response above was questioning Archrogue copy/pasting the same weak WP:SUPPORT vote on every nomination. Bandwagon voting such as this has been a lot more common than you would think. When my laptop is fixed, I'm most likely going to file an RfC on AFD reform, since it is clear that several of the recurring voters and a few of the nominators aren't following deletion criteria or aren't aware that AfD isn't general clean-up. Example. There is also a lot of WP:PERNOM and WP:ITSCRUFT going around, mostly from the same voters on multiple nominations. I'm surprised an administrator hasn't noticed or cracked down on it by now.) Dark knight 2149 07:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure plot referenced to primary sources, fails NFICTION. No objection if anyone wants to merge a few sentences back to the main article, but this is clealry excessive detail. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Piotrus. Only referenced to primary sources, but wouldn't object if someone summarized a few sentences for the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFICTION including WP:GNG and WP:WAF due to excessive detail from primary sources. Jontesta (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that this meets WP:NFICTION; quite the reverse. (t · c) buidhe 21:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dharma Karma[edit]

(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 that was found were film database sites, other wikis and youtube videos. Citations in article do not establish notability, only that the film exists. Tagged for notability since 2011. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; the film exists but there is a lack of coverage and reviews Spiderone 08:01, 3 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 15:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheryl D. Lyon[edit]

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

The article currently contains a single source to an affiliated website (a profile on the subject's employer's website). I am not seeing any significant coverage in independent sources online (some passing mentions, but no in-depth coverage), and while I'm not an expert on military matters, I don't believe that as a Command Sergeant Major the subject passes any of the criteria at WP:NSOLDIER. In short, I'm not seeing evidence that the subject is notable according to our criteria. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any way in which she qualifies under WP:Nsoldier. Not happy that all the content was copy and pasted from the NSA site. Rogermx (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 06:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 09:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolahala[edit]

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

Non notable movie whose references fail to demonstrate notability. Created by eponymous and now blocked COI editor, but we are judging the article, not the editor Fiddle Faddle 14:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 14:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 14:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Found the one Times of India review that's already cited, but that's not enough. Couldn't even find an IMdB enty, and they list EVERYTHING! Donaldd23 (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Entertainment Times part of that paper is deprecated at WP:RSN as unreliable. WP:BEFORE revealed nothing useful. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

with the exception of film reviews if you read the RFC, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306, I'm grateful for the extra information. Even so this review is insubstantial, albeit scathing Fiddle Faddle 20:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that TOI is considered reliable at ICTF. But the cited source seems to be a capsule review which may not establish notability per WP:NFSOURCES. --Ab207 (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; needs more than one published review to get an automatic pass on the latter Spiderone 16:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margret Kopala[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a writer and policy analyst who has no claim of notability strong enough to exempt her from having to have much better references than this. Five of the seven footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all (the unpublished private archives of a theatre company, IMDb, her own self-published website about herself, etc.) -- and of the just two footnotes that are actual reliable sources, both are just tangentially verifying stray facts about other things or people named in this article, without mentioning Margret Kopala's name at all in conjunction with them, all of which means that none of the sources are establishing her notability. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's possible to find technical verification that they exist -- the notability test requires having media independently establish the significance of her work by doing third party journalism about it, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from that. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom, wasn't able to find much beyond a few bylines and a few articles that quoted her as a "policy analyst." Agree that there should be many more sources about her, if they exist. Caro7200 (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. I searched Canadian newspaper databases and found lots of editorials she has written, but these are not WP:RS. There were also lots of "Letters to the Newspaper" in response to her writing, but do not fulfil C1 of WP:JOURNALIST because they are not her peers. I was unable to find profiles on her life or reviews of her written work from her peers from Google, JSTOR, NYT, ProQuest or Academic OneFile. Z1720 (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Estadio El Campín. Editors can decide what if anything to merge from the history. Sandstein 07:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of concerts at El Campín Stadium[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN. Delete per WP:IINFO. Paisarepa 03:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa 03:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa 03:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa 03:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant information into Estadio El Campín that isn't already there. This definitely doesn't need its own page. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Estadio El Campín: per above. Limit merge to the content that has references. Wikipedia does not need a separate list for every type of event at every venue. WP:LISTCRUFT // Timothy :: talk 14:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Listcruft at its best. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess there may be something notable that can be included in the main article, but WP should not be a catalogue of every event held anywhere in the world. Reywas92^Talk 21:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't even complete – the list stops in 2017 and there have been concerts at the stadium since then. I suspect there were concerts before 1988 as well. Richard3120 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The stadium article should probably only mention the records or other significant events, not every one. Geschichte (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essa Kazim[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:BIO. A working stiff. scope_creep^Talk 12:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of achievements passing the notability thresholds. 1292simon (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill business person. He is on a few boards, but has not done anything notable himself. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 6 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. I'm not seeing a consensus to delete right now but experience shows that if better sourcing is not found then the discussion may well go delete at a later relist Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SCP - Secret Laboratory[edit]

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

The article does not have any sources. I've done a google check, and there is some coverage of the game on YouTube and Steam. Nothing by way of reliable, independent sources and therefore WP:GNG fail. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Spirit of Eagle for unearthing a couple of sources on the subject. The Screen Rant article certainly is substantial coverage. I am not sure, however, if Screen Rant is a reliable source. Even when given the benefit of the doubt, we still do not have the coverage in multiple reliable sources, which is called for in WP:GNG. I think it would be fair to ask @Paul Carpenter:, @LewisMCYoutube: and @Zxcvbnm: whether they want to reconsider their !votes. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Modussiccandi: sorry but looking at the article right now all the references are empty and nothing points to ScreenRant. I assume this was just a mistake on someone's part. If the sources could be actually placed into the article (or even placed here), then sure, I'd reconsider. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah wait, I see them at the bottom of this page now, I'm now neutral on this one. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also neutral at this time. LewisMCYoutube (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not contain sources demonstrating notability, and could find none out there either._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage in reliable sources LewisMCYoutube (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's not a claim to notability, sourced or otherwise. --Paul Carpenter (talk)

10:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't Delete There is an official wiki made by the developers and a website that can be used for sourcing so I say don't delete. And I am fixing the article now. --AndrewMidkiff (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AndrewMidkiff, but I'm not sure the developer's website will fix notability issues. We need sources that are independent (WP:GNG) from the subject to prove it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wait but If I make I guide on steam can I cite that? --AndrewMidkiff (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look so the page for verafibiltty says that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". The developer is the most expert on the subject matter because they are the ones you produce it, also anyone can prove the information by playing the game. There are many steam guides that verify the content on the wiki so I think the offical wiki is a good source.

--AndrewMidkiff (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AndrewMidkiff, if I understand you correctly, you are one of the game's developers. First of all, let me say that you are strongly discouraged from editing on a subject which you are closely connected with. You should also consider declaring your conflict of interest on your userpage. About the notability of the game: Steam is an e-commerce vendor. Such sources may be used to verify game titles and technical information, but, given that they want to sell the product, do not reach the standard of independence required for WP:GNG. What Wikipedia is looking for are reputable, third-party source, e.g. a review of the game in a reputable newspaper. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am not a developer of the game I just play the game, and I don't want to see the article deleted and I am interested in making a great article. Also the official wiki is a wiki and is not an opinionated source though the offical website and steam is. --AndrewMidkiff (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I misunderstood you there. I don't think the official wiki should be viewed as a reliable source because it can be edited by anybody. It would be easy for me to create an account on that website and insert false information. For these reasons Wikipedia itself is not suitable for use as source in Wikipedia articles. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But what if I prove everything I add to the article in the game and document it using screen recording? --AndrewMidkiff (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you made those recordings yourself, that would be original research which should not appear in articles per WP:ORIGINAL. Look, the point is that the article should be built from reliable, independent, secondary sources. In other words, we need something from a good, published source (e.g. The Guardian, The New York Times etc.) Modussiccandi (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I surrender; go delete the page, I don't care, even though you can easily prove every thing I could put on the page "it is not fit for wikipedia because it is orignal research". It just seems like spilting hairs to me, consider this example: The fact that the sky is blue is not internationally known but everyone who is told that the sky is blue can easily prove it, but no one can publish it on wikipedia because no "reputable source" has published it. It just seems like I just need to call the New York Times and tell them hey, can you publish a article that is a info dump on this game because if you do then I can publish it on wikipedia, see how stupid that is, yeah. You can delete the article but I will make a well fleshed out article on my sandbox. --AndrewMidkiff (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sky being blue technically doesn't really need a reliable source to confirm it, but that has no bearing on this. Information on a video game most definitely should be confirmed by a reliable source. Unlike the sky being blue, it can potentially be wrong if you just do your own personal investigation on it because other people would need to play the game to confirm it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (see second paragraph for keep vote) The nominator appears to have only done a generic Google search. Using Google News I found a few additional sources, specifically Screen Rant (a pop culture website that does employ several editors) and several articles by Game Tyrant (such as this one). I'm not particularly convinced that Game Tyrant is reliable (its not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources nor was I able to find any information on the website's/ writer's qualifications) nor am I making a keep vote at this point. However, I think the discussion so far has failed to adequately analyze the available sources. While notability is still in doubt, this is not a "there are no sources whatsoever" type article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Rant is a decent enough source (based on the link above, they maintain policies on subjects such as fact checking, corrections, ethics, etc. and their editorial team has some impressive credentials). Oxen Games and Tyrant Games are also decent sources for the “reception” section. Sourcing is honestly still a bit sparse and I would like to see more coverage from major gaming sources, but in the end I think there is just enough coverage to push this article over the gng line. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources by Spirit of Eagle. Screen rant is a reliable source for this and Game Tyrant appears to segregate native advertising from their editorial reviews. I was also able to find this review which appears to be done by professional reviewers with editorial oversight. W 42 18:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per the sources found. A lot of this is still unreferenced, leaving very little referenced material that will need to be removed. A merge might make sense if a target could be found. Jontesta (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Is Impossible (film)[edit]

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

Film has one review cited (loveHKfilm). I searched and couldn't find another. Is this film notable enough to keep? Donaldd23 (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; needs more than one published review to get an automatic pass on the latter Spiderone 09:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Skyworth. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coocaa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP scope_creep^Talk 11:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify - topic may have potential for notability (not proven by current article), however the article has various PROMO issues and would need to be rewritten from scratch. 1292simon (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Skyworth. This seems to be a pretty run of the mill company going about it's normal business. Which the article is clearly an advert for. Both the advertishness and mill running are clearly reflected in the lack of good sources about them and the references in the article being to their website, including their shop. That said, I'd be fine with a redirect to their parent company. Although, just deleting it outright is probably the better option all things considered. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete I agree with the above, this topic fails GNG/NCORP but a redirect to the parent company might be sensible. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Estner[edit]

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

No significant coverage of any kind. None of the cited sources cover the subject in depth (particularly given that two are entry lists). Subject fails to meet any WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not too sure. I'm able to find some coverage of him (not sure if its enough) but also, I definitely remember seeing somewhere that previously having raced in the European Formula 3 Championship was sufficient to satisfy NMOTORSPORT, and while this may be a controversial view, I think that from 2019, Euroformula Open has become the defacto top tier "actual" F3 series in Europe. Certainly Sebastian Estner isn't the only driver with an article whose top level of racing so far is Euroformula Open. A7V2 (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point there, but I'm not too sure about European F3 meeting NMOTORSPORT (maybe point 3?). If you could find that discussion I would be very appreciative; looking at Google results I'm not convinced he has significant coverage.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said a few times (eg), NMOTORSPORT isn't really that helpful (in particular point 1 given that often even the most professional of motor sports have negligible prizemoney, and Trans Am, at least in current form, is not very well covered by reliable sources to the point where the drivers would all be notable). As to your question,I'm sure there was something else, but at least this recent discussion, although not really about this, no-one questioned the notability of Arthur Leclerc given that he has competed in Formula Regional which is of course arguably the successor to the European F3 series. But then as you say, there isn't much coverage of him (Sebastian Estner), and articles such as [21] I'm not sure if that's enough for significant coverage. So I suppose I will remain Neutral, or lean weak delete. A7V2 (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, when I referred to NMOTORSPORTS here and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicola Marinangeli I mean more the spirit, rather than the letter, of the guidelines. A7V2 (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your issues with NMOTORSPORT, the guideline does seem pretty poorly designed. With the case of Arthur Leclerc, he has received a fair bit more attention and therefore coverage than Sebastian Estner. I understand your point but I don't think competing in F3 makes a driver notable, that should be combined with meaningful coverage.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's no coverage of him because he's only one a single race out of many he's done. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 6 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 13:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Football League[edit]

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

Non-notable junior league. Does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Under 10s and under 12s. Surely way below the level we should be covering. Nigej (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, this is of no relevance whatsoever. Geschichte (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Return to draft. Slight supervote because its seems better to give the creator time to find better sources than just deleting outright. Just a reminder that a BLP requires good sourcing unless there is a very clear SNG pass. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Marinangeli[edit]

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

No significant coverage, just a handful of routine reports. No notability of any kind has been established. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was created through AfC, I would like to hear reviewer @SL93:'s reasoning for accepting the draft given it does not meet a single criteria of WP:NMOTORSPORT and has a very small selection of sources (one being an entry list, another being an Instagram post, and none covering the subject in depth).
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 5225C I was unsure if it met WP:NMOTORSPORT and so was the AFC commenter before me. It's not like the articles for the races make it clear to non-fans whether they are fully professional or not. I didn't know where best to ask for opinions until recently and I was only trying to make a decision on a draft that has been in AfC for months...since no one there apparently understood that guideline either. SL93 (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I do actually think this coverage is fine per WP:GNG, which I found by only searching for a few minutes - 1, 2, and 3. GNG trumps anything else when it comes to notability. SL93 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of these sources meet the requirement for significant coverage. They are both short recaps of his results and entries. Other articles simply note his participation in different series. There's none of the ongoing, subject-specific coverage required for notability to be established. If a driver's notability was established based on the number of articles in which they were mentioned, than we'd be writing articles for every second F4 driver – that's partly why WP:NMOTORSPORT exists. In the end, the subject is just another junior formulae driver and hasn't received much more than the passing interest given to most.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then from what I've seen over the years, all of the individual sports notability guidelines need an overhaul. I see plenty of articles of professional athletes that can stay around only because they are professional - despite having absolutely no significant coverage. It's backwards thinking in my mind. Though that's a discussion for somewhere else that I know won't result in anything else. SL93 (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm also unconvinced they meet GNG, and they certainly haven't competed in any series major enough to justify under WP:NMOTORSPORT. A7V2 (talk) 10:10, 1 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. czar 02:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EditPlus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Old AfD from 10 years ago cited few soures but neither of them appears to meet WP:RS, most have rotted away, what remains is "publisher description+user review at a download site, and this review at a very niche portal. I don't think that's enough. WP:NOTCATALOGUE of software etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Going to Comparison of text editors and checking links at random from this page and comparing with the EditPlus page, this page is quite robust and stands up well in comparison, except there are no references. Deleting a page over absence of references is a bit of a shallow dig. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Whiteguru: Are you serious? Please read WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I could find reference wise about this was a single trivial source and the article is completely void of anything to help it be notable. So, I agree with the nominator that it fails both WP:GNG and the notability guidelines for software. I'm not sure what the keep voter is talking about with the whole "robustness of the page" thing, but we aren't talking about food or something here and 100% the article lacking any references matter if there's no other references out there to add to it. Which there isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, well, if there are no references to be found, than this article fails WP:GNG and as thus is not notable. "Robustness of the page" is not a reason to keep, in fact that makes the article worse since it is certainly entirely original research. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Vandeven[edit]

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

A BLP without any solid sourcing that fails GNG & ENT. Potentially worth a redirect to Life on Top.. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't know if these are RS, but we see her being featured in 1, 2, 3, 4. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 14:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Hopeless. I suggest you read the GNG again if you think these count. 1. Not RS. 2. Rewarmed prezz release, the link to the night club is the clue, 3. Isn't about her at all - just a photo. 4. Really?? Wtf?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's clearly a non-notable entertainer. There's no multiple in-depth reliable sources about her. It should be obvious that articles having to do with sex toys don't cut it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets, per WP:ATD. No indication of the level significant coverage necessary for independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:09, 8 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. There is a consensus that the sources provided are not sufficiently independent to be usable to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^talk 09:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperlink InfoSystem[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORP. Sources are all press releases, name drops and comments from those associated with the company, self published websites.

1. REF #1 Melissa Crooks, content writer who writes for the company [22]

2. REF #2, paid article with disclaimer The views, suggestions and opinions expressed here are the sole responsibility of the experts. No Forbes India journalist was involved in the writing and production of this article.

3. REF #4 paid promo (partnered content)

4. REF #5 paid article, unreliable source

5. REF #6 study carried out by hyperlink

6. REF #7 study carried out by hyperlink

7. REF #8 partnered content

8. REF #9 partnered content

9. REF #10 interview with founder

10.REF #13 press release [23] other sources include company's directories, PR paid articles, and unreliable sources. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found many references from reliable resources passes GNG and WP:RS. DMySon 16:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @DMySon: Can you point to references that you believe have in-depth, independent coverage?--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned this paid article, unreliable source while Hindustan Times is a reliable resource and not paid as it mentioned many companies. And this is independent reliable reference. You mentioned this, study carried out by hyperlink. Again this is not the study by Hyperlink but it is a study by Marc Fischer, CEO and Co-founder, Dogtown Media. And many more in the list which are reliable resources. DMySon 11:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DMySon this is literally a paid piece and says as much directly on the page, it's brand sponsored. This is a single passing mention and this is an op ed. Praxidicae (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DMySon Yes, I am aware Hindustan Times is a well-know newspaper in India. However, if you look closely, at the bottom, It is written This content is distributed by Digpu News Network and I meant Digpu is not a reliable source as on their website and LinkedIn it says Indian PR news distribution network. Hope you understood why I called it non RS.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator claim for deletion is not accurate for all giving references. Most of the coverage are independent and reliable. Passes WP:GNG. Gdrged (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gdrged: Already explained above as to why sources are not reliable and independent. They are all press releases, listings in company directories, interviews, paid articles which are considered primary, non independent and do not count towards notability.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and my review of sources above. Praxidicae (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reliance on sponsored content, no truly independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources are primary, paid, or trivial, and while there is a lot out there about them I couldn't find anything that wasn't at least one of those three things. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability of a company/organization as discussed above. The main failure is a complete lack of any "Independent Content" which is required in order to count towards establishing notability and must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references I can locate meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete fails the GNG and NORG, sources are not independent and reliable. Java Hurricane 05:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shubh Tv[edit]

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

Found this total orphan in an article cleanup. I don't speak Hindi so I can't judge its notability but it looks to fail WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 23:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 23:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 23:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - a simple search throws up enough material to make this a reasonable sort of page out of this. Strong Hindi / Hindu devotional -- Whiteguru (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The first of the two sources is a dead-link. The seconds indicates that the channels exists but nothing to indicate notability. Might be notable in the future but currently fails GNG. And just saying but I as an Indian TV viewer have never even heard about this channel. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a single inkling of reliable sources from what I can find that firmly establish notability. Might be reliable in the future, but as it stands now, it's not quite there yet. ToThAc (talk) 22:15, 7 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. no support (besides nom) for deletion, whether to merge or improve can be discussed elsewhere. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inner suburb[edit]

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

It appears to be non notable due to lack of references in the article. I checked Google and I couldn’t find any outside references. This article hasn’t cited references in almost 11 years. Zoe1013 (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Suburb, doesn't warrant separate article. Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What about this page: List of inner suburbs in the United States? Should it be redirected/merge to suburb? Zoe1013 (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this appears to be a well known/used term ie. Racial Transition in the Inner Suburb: Studies of the St. Louis Area, The places we keep: the heritage studies of Victoria and outcomes for urban planners (numerous occurrences), Whitechapel 1600-1800: A Social History of an Early Modern London Inner Suburb, People and property in Redfern: post war changes in the population and the properties in an inner suburb of Sydney, Inner Suburbs at Stake: Investing in Social Infrastructure in Scarborough, Lovely Spaces in Unknown Places: Creative City Building in Toronto’s Inner Suburbs (numerous times), and so on, and so on. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A standard concept in urban geography – see BBC, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Suburb - I don’t see why this needs its own article. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a wellknown subject.★Trekker (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Holy... the suburb article is bad. Inner suburb is however very short and unreferenced. Having considered the subjects, it would seem like inner suburb could have potential for its own article, but could be merged in its present state, allowing for a split once the suburb topic is totally reworked. Geschichte (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte - What’s wrong with it? Foxnpichu (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too few references, some paragraphs are not sourced at all. Very anglocentric scope, even half of the "Worldwide" section is about North America. Paragraph titles seem off; "Etymology", "History", "Worldwide" (?), "Traffic flows", the last paragraph has several tags, too long "see also" list which should be integrated into sections or subsections with Template:Main links... Geschichte (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte - Now that you’ve mentioned it... man you’re right. The page isn’t very well written. I think we should see the outcome of this AfD, then maybe we could work on improving the page. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added sources to the article. Zoozaz1 talk 18:21, 3 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 for deletion, and that the subject does not meet notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Mansur (film director)[edit]

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

Lacks independent coverage. Sources are press releases, some coverage such as this is the typical typo-filled sponsored coverage. The COVID film is not notable, could not verify in other sources that he has directed TV shows. Usually, film directors receive plenty of passing mentions in independent sources ("in blabla which was directed by X") but there is no such coverage to be found here. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone Daily Pakistan is an english newspaper and notable so he is passing WP:GNG meanwhile i have added few more references and fixed detail, he has many references in arabic language too i have added few and if someone needs i will paste more in arabic newspaper.

--Maj Gen PA (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

```comment``` - having looked through this article I cannot see any reliable sources which provide significant, independent coverage of this subject. If I could see at least two then I would vote to keep this, otherwise I will vote to delete. User:Mag Gen PA, would you kindly highlight the two sorces which best demonstrate this subject's notability? --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Salimfadhley in arabic or english? i can provide 5 references and two are in english and rest are arabic newspaper.

--Maj Gen PA (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the 2 English sources. Very few Wikipedia-En editors can read Arabic, so Arabic sources will take much more time to be verified. Please identify which two sources most indicate the notability of this subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Salimfadhley Daily Pakistan is a english newspaper of Pakistan and same as Daily Times and many articles here on Wikipedia has source of them so if you ignored that two top newspapers then here i found two more links.

I have reviewed these references, and neither seem to be significant coverage. They are very short biographical articles from relatively unknown publishers. If these are the best sources we have in English, then based on that I am inclined to vote to delete the or bump the article back to draft-status until we can verify the Arabic references. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rest i have found many references in arabic as he is Iraqi. --Maj Gen PA (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- delete - The English sources do not seem to be sufficient to show notability, the Arabic sources seem to be little more than press releases. The sources that were offered do not offer the kind of significant coverage that would show notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete utterly non-notable, sourced to fake black hat SEO spam sites and ugen content. Praxidicae (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person. Already deleted on arwiki here and on fawiki here (per RfD), and all articles created by the same user. Also ref3+4 said that (I Loved Him) is the first movie for this director!! There's no reiable sources about him --Alaa :)..! 17:00, 1 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 06:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BinDawood Holding[edit]

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

The holding company is not separately notable to the BinDawood Stores topic for the shops themselves. 1292simon (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Your right. Run of the mill business news, routine announcements, monies raised, equities offerings. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 11:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree about this company and the sources being run of the mill. Therefore, it totally fails both Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Cambridge United F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS; nothing notable or remarkable about this season so I can't see any reason for it to be an exception to our guidelines Spiderone 08:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 13:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 15:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Headgum. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Headgum Podcast[edit]

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

Notability not established, lacks independent sources. 1292simon (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, the article has no single source from anything besides their own podcast and website which makes me wonder how it was accepted at the first place.Georgiamarlins (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Headgum. Yeah, this was clearly created by a COI editor and isn't notable. So, it can go bye bye. That said, possibly it could be redirected to the page of the podcast company that it's run by. Although, I don't know if it (or they) deserve to have it redirected. Let alone if it would be worth it at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Headgum: Barely found anything about the podcast. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We can revisit if someone finds sources and happy to putbin draft if someone wants to work on it Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Srinivas Devamsam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous article instance was brought to AfD in February 2019. Ajf773's rationale at that time was "Doesn't meet the criteria for WP:CREATIVE. Cinematographers generally need more independent sources than working on a few films to be considered notable.". The AfD closed early with a G11 speedy-deletion. The present article instance is not promotional, consisting mainly of a bare bones table of films on which the subject has worked, with a couple of poor listing references, but that earlier AfD rationale seems appropriate here too. (I also note the article carries maintenance tags that predate this version and in one case the earlier version, indicating some copy-paste.) Searches find passing mentions of the subject as being on the crew for various films, which can help verify the article but evidence of working is not enough to demonstrate attained notability. I should also mention that I removed a couple of article categories concerning industry awards as they were not in the article text; my searches are not finding evidence of awards but if these can be supported they could change the consideration of notability.(See comment below about copy-pasted categories from another biographical article) AllyD (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft Ran a google search and i saw some sources in a language that i don't understand, so move to draft until another editor or the original editor works on it and add more sources.Cheers!Georgiamarlins (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't seem notable from what I can tell. Which isn't suppressing. Since it's hard for even "Western" Hollywood Cinematographers to be. Sure, the article could be drafted, but my guess is that it either be recreated without improvement and review, or it would just rot. Sure, there might be non-English sources about him, but my guess is that they are trivial name drops that don't establish his notability. One giveaway to that being the case is that there is no non-English language article about him. Usually if someone in India is notable there is an Indian language article on them. Especially if they are in the film industry. So, my guess is that this guy isn't notable. The films he was the Cinematographer for hardly are. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When categories were added to this article in this edit, they appear to be a copy-paste version of those from the P._C._Sreeram article, including copying his awards. AllyD (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Clearly my view is against consensus here. Meets WP:NBOOK. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore of Assam[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable book by a notable author. I would have redirected to Jogesh Das, but that would seem misleading as presumably searchers of that term would be looking to learn about the folklore of Assam. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the book was published by a publishing house under government's ministry, that should establish some notability on its own.Georgiamarlins (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: crawling through the listings on Google Scholar shows this title has many citations. Clearly a reference text for other studies on Assam and its culture. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Does WP:NBOOK say anything in particular about being published by the government or having many citations? The best I can find is WP:OLDBOOK and WP:TEXTBOOKS, neither of which seems particularly helpful here. I recognize that common sense should prevail, but there are, after all, many highly cited reference works out there—what makes this one, in particular, notable? (Incidentally, I don't think this book is that highly cited: Scholar gives 32 citations.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see the book cited in Indian and Japanese Folklore: An Introductory Assessment (1984), Tribes and Castes of Manipur: Description and Select Bibliography (1992), Khasi-Jaintia Folklore: Context, Discourse, and History (2004), A History of Intoxication: Opium in Assam, 1800–1959 (2019), The Music and Musical Instruments of North Eastern India (2003), and there's more. I'm not super familiar with sources of people writing about people writing about Indian folklore, but I think common sense can prevail here. If there are many highly cited reference works out there, then it's not a bad idea for them to have Wikipedia articles. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify as requested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Thomas[edit]

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

No indication of independent notability per WP:BIO, with no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. Captain Calm (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

moved to drafts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristanhunt (talk • contribs) 05:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please move to drafts Unintentionally published live - will work on adding additional sources to establish notability / reliability (also did not realize I shouldn't have moved to drafts manually, again my inexperience). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristanhunt (talk • contribs) 05:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC) I have reformatted this to avoid disrupting today's log. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as requested. Mccapra (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Per request by article creator. Mistakes happen. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes of Habsburg-Lorraine[edit]

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

not notable 20th-21st century aristocrat who became a priest. No notability in either role. WP is neither a `genealogical site nor a society column DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a translation from a French Wikipedia page ~~but all sources provided are non-reliable. I have not found any significant coverage in reliable ones myself.~~ Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Perhaps it was thought that the subject is notable because he is a descendant of the last emperor of Austria. That, however, is irrelevant for determining the notability of the subject per WP:BIOFAMILY. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not recognising the reliable sources. I had dismissed Point de Vue as a gossip site. Thanks to Andreas Philopater for clearing this up. Still delete per WP:BASIC and WP:1E. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough substantial sourcing to establish his notability as a priest, which is the main focus of the article. Yes he is a Catholic priest...so are 500,000 more men. Can't have articles on all of them. Fails WP:RELPEOPLE. Also contrary to the information in the article, any dynastic rights he held as a member of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine were automatically lost post his ordination. So not even a titular Archduke of Austria anymore. TheRedDomitor (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It isn't actually that hard to find coverage in reliable sources (such as this and this, just from the first page of one Google search). If you're going to argue for deletion, WP:ONEEVENT would put you on firmer ground. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. Any sourcing that exists, even reliable one's, are derivative of his status as a member of the former Austrian Imperial family, who in a rare occurrence has joined the priestly ranks. So I guess yeah...WP:ONEEVENT is a better clause for summing this matter. Still not enough to establish notability as a priest though. TheRedDomitor (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Austria has abolished titles of nobility, so that "archduke" is a mere hereditary title. Being ordained does not make him notable either. Conclusion: NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is more deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 2 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salar Azimi[edit]

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

no apperent evidence for notability in this overpersonal account DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is not known from a specific event. But his story is: a refugee who became one of the richest Dutch people. This is well published in the Dutch and Belgian media. SportsOlympic (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meeting GNG, many secondary sources about him. A know person in The Netherlands and Belgium; every week he is in several television programs. Also founder and owner of football club K. Patro Eisden Maasmechelen. SportsOlympic (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ - no evidence of notability. If @SportsOlympic: can provide sources which apparently exist in large quantities then let me know and I will re-review... Giant Snowman 19:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: thanks for voting and the question to show the sources. He is not notable for a specific event, but it’s a story about a refugee who became one of the richest Dutch persons (named in the Quote500 [nl]: magazine with the richest people and their story) by hard working. If you google his name you find 100s of news sources. I give the news articles in some of the most known news sources in The Netherlands. Not saying this are the best articles, but showing he is known nationwide. The story is at the main Dutch national newspapers: Trouw, De Telegraaf, Algemeen Dagblad. Also by Belgian national newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws. Some other secondary national known sources: Intermediair, Vier, Linda Magazine after his appeareance in Jinek [nl], Vice, De Ondernemer. Story from a local news media outlet Omroep Zeelend: “without him there wouldn’t have been football in this region”. In my opinion this is more than enough meeting GNG, so I stop here. But google his name and you will find many more articles. SportsOlympic (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears notable, article just needs a complete overhaul. Giant Snowman 07:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Comments For WP:GNG there are rather a lot of different news articles in the Dutch and French-Belgium language hits, showing there is clearly evidence that he can pass WP:GNG. There are some sources behind the paywall at Dutch Finical Times. The article could be grateful improved. It's a bit hard when I don't know Dutch. But from what I can see on a simple google search there is more than enough hits. Govvy (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Trans World Entertainment. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaspien[edit]

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

The predecessor company, Trans World Entertainment was probably notable. The new one is not. There's no substantial coverage of it that meets WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an open move request on Talk:Trans World Entertainment about moving it to Kaspien. It's the same company, just with a new name, so they should just be merged. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus whether the sources actually lead to Danar passing WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Danar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Producer with no coverage. Fails WP:PRODUCER and WP:NMUSICIAN. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No indication of notability. scope_creep^Talk 00:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's already coverage cited in the article, and there are reviews of his album from WYCE and Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Google Books suggests more coverage exists. --Michig (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Google book references are mostly producer credits and are effectively passing mentions and the one small para in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer isn't the sufficiently in-depth, reliable, independent and secondary source that is needed for a BLP. If there was several reviews + sufficient coverage to validate the article, perhaps, but I don't see it. Producers per consensus generally don't make it on Wikipedia, so it needs to show he is a real musician. Currently he has 125 monthly listeners on Spotify, nothing on Soundcloud, Napster, Amazon music and no social media presence. scope_creep^Talk 10:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And there is not whisper on Google News. scope_creep^Talk 11:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment am neutral on this one but there is no consensus that music producers should be excluded from Wikipedia; it's just that many of them receive sparse coverage. When one does pass WP:GNG there is nothing blocking their inclusion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, your right. Not consensus. More a, habit as they tend not to have coverage. scope_creep^Talk 19:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the PopMatters piece already in the article, I was able to find another review on this Italian website, which from putting the article through google translate looks to provide SIGCOV. I reckon that combined, this sourcing is enough to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firestorm Cafe & Books[edit]

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

existing sources and quick search does not show wider notability. Fails WP:NCORP, especially in terms of establishing sufficient sigcov from sources that satisfies broad audience requirements. Graywalls (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORGCRITE. Neighborhood coffeehouses are not inherently notable. KidAd talk 23:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No effort by the nom or the superficial !vote to present a reasoned argument that the subject does not meet the GNG. We have hundreds of thousands of articles which so not fit into SNG pigeonholes, and the pigeonhole claim alone cannot justify deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Others exist is not a good cause against deletion in this case. You can make improvements by AfDing those that fail notability test.Graywalls (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; The first three references give strong notability with regard to the role and function of this establishment in the community. It is more than a neighbourhood coffee house. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
request for clarification @Whiteguru:, which three? If you meant sequentially, Significant, independent, reliable and secondary. #1 and 2: these two are the same sources. Worker-run. Collectively-managed. Anarchist publishing and distribution since 1990. It might not pass independent and reliable as far as notability establishment is concerned. The article is tagged "AK Allies" and it appears that there's a wholesaler/retailer relationship between the two. I'm assuming that the cafe in question sells AK Press published books, thus "independent" (of the group writing about the article subject) is questionable. #3: it's the organization itself. absolutely fails "independent" requirements. Graywalls (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Doesn't look good—almost all of the coverage is routine and hyper-local (Mountain Xpress, WLOS, Blue Ridge Public Radio, Citizen Times) about local news/Asheville topics. And there's these two, but altogether there isn't enough significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) to write an article worthy of the subject.
- Surowski, Peter (July 2012). "Livening Things up with Muslc". Specialty Coffee Retailer. 19 (7): 32–34. ISSN 1077-3460. EBSCOhost 78096284.
- Dunn, Thom (May 12, 2020). "An anarchist community bookstore had the best response to getting robbed". Boing Boing. Retrieved September 12, 2020.

Not finding traction in alt weeklies or radical press publications either. czar 18:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That book might not do it for WP:AUD, and content wise I can't comment since I can't see it. The boingboing. Given how dependent it is on the subject's facebook and Instagram pages, this looks like a mostly dependent coverage with sensational comments regarding a single event. If this event received ongoing coverage beyond the month or so after the incident, I would say it adds to notability. Graywalls (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather strained argument. Did these warrant analysis? I listed them because they're both innocuous. Surowski is an industry journal article that has a quarter-page section on the bookstore. You can request EBSCOhost access at WP:TWL, especially if you expect to be nominating many more articles. Boing Boing is sufficient for what it is regardless of whether the stated incident has further coverage. It has no issues of "dependency" with the subject matter. As I said, we'd need more to constitute significant coverage for the topic but that doesn't disqualify both these sources are independent, reliable, ultimately fine, yet weak for notability without further sources. czar 01:50, 13 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) 02:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; enough coverage, per BBw & others. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have reliable sources to prove WP:N. Wm335td (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

explain please If you would say which sources and which of those satisfyWP:ORGDEPTH, it would help a whole lot more than just say "we have reliable sources". Mountain Express is a local source; and series or articles by the same publication or same journalist counts as one, so that's one. Not one of the sources currently shown meets the criteria significant, independent, reliable and secondary and nobody so far has offered sources that do. Of those that meets all those, a minimum of one has to be regional, national or international. Also, a few hours is somethimg, but that "keep" vote was casted four days past when the AfD should have wrapped up on the second relist. Graywalls (talk) 16:37, 7 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 Move to userspace. ReaderofthePack requested that this be moved to a place it could be improved if possible, I support the idea, no one has !voted, so as nominator I am closing the AfD to facilitate the move. (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 05:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ebola Rex (film)[edit]

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

Article does not meet GNG or NFILM. Sources in the article and BEFORE showed only brief promo pieces, video trailers, release announcements, and blog posts. // Timothy :: talk 00:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 00:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll try and save this if I can, but if not, can I have this transferred to my userspace? This plot is so ridiculous I'd like to wait for sourcing to become available. I have a soft spot for bonkers films like this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found a review from Horror Society. They're not on the same level of say, Dread Central, but they're typically seen as reliable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ReaderofthePack, I'd be happy to close this so it can be moved :) My question is, should it be moved to your space or to Drafts, since you're not the original author? Since you're an admin I'm sure you'll know the proper place and will leave the move to you. Best wishes from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 04:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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