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

The result was no consensus. No agreement and minimal participation after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fame (Thai band)[edit]

Fame (Thai band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails notability guidelines at WP:BAND. Prod tag removed with notation, "Should go through AfD" with no changes or comment as to why. No reliable sources found to establish notability. Ifnord (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because this was a notable band in Thailand. There are sources available for the band's native name. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KartikeyaS343 If there are sources about the band, can you please share those with us here? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to find online sources for a Thai band from 1980's but if you search its native name, you will get some sources. Unfortunately, I do not know the Thai language but some sources are still there such as [1]. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is google search for the band name [2]. Note that there is a mixup between วงเฟม (FAME band) and วงเฟลม (Flame band), 2 different bands in the google search results. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The corresponding article in Thai language Wikipedia might be helpful. --KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing notability in that article, which appears to be tagged as promotional and includes a Facebook page as a reference. My nomination is not a statement that the band is bad - or good. Simply that it doesn't meet notability criteria for a global encyclopedia. Ifnord (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The band had a short career spanning three years beginning thirty years ago, so contemporary secondary sources will be hard to come by, but likely exist in archives. The cited Naewna article provides some in-depth background. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Harwood[edit]

Tom Harwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability -- the references are essentially his own presentations. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No notable journalist. Can find independent, reliable source that talk about him. Sources are all his own interview/work. Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet GNG. No evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cowlibob (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've now significantly edited this article, I'll have to now become neutral. Cowlibob (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. Tom Harwood is indeed a notable journalist. He has been a regular appearance on TV and radio since the 2016 Brexit referendum, including Politics Live^[1] and Question Time.^[2] Whilst a student at Durham he was receiving coverage - a whole article in Conservative Home.^[3]

It would be a mistake to delete this article as a new one will be made by another editor in a short while. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NS MediaMole (talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, reluctantly While Tom Harwood has, to put it mildly as possible, reprehensible views that I find offensive, such as having a swing at Greta Thunberg (although to be fair my judgement may be clouded by the Daily Express frequently quoting him as the best thing to happen in youth politics ever), he has been covered in more places than the Express, including Question Time. One way that Wikipedia can shine is that our Neutral Point of View policies allows readers to learn who these people are outside of the right wing media that fawns over them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I couldn't agree more with the user Ritchie333. Though I detest Tom Harwood's views, I made this article as I feel that it is important for others to be able to see them clearly. Like it or not, Tom Harwood is a prominent Brexit commentator. It is only in keeping with Wikipedia's neutrality that we include his article on this site. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NS MediaMole (talk • contribs) 09:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Harwood has been getting Brexit-related WP:SIGCOV since 2016, and it is ongoing. Yesterday there as this: "The irony of that was not lost on pro-Brexit commentator Tom Harwood, who tweeted: “The anti-comic sans brigade is one 48% I can confirm I am a part of.”" a back-and-forth on twitter that got real press coverage [3], [4]. Strandvue (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Thomas Jr.[edit]

Charles Thomas Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR . Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Seems like maybe a case of too soon. A few mentions, awards, etc. but not much of what really matters: in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I also could find no significant sources in a very thorough search. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 09:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tutkowski[edit]

Tutkowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a family that does not appear to be notable. Lots of very general uncited claims, but nothing that would show notability. Renata (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I have connected this to pl wiki article. Mentioned on two pages according to the index of Maria Sołtysik (1 January 1993). Gdynia, miasto dwudziestolecia międzywojennego: urbanistyka i architektura. Wydawn. Naukowe PWN. ISBN 978-83-01-11242-4.; snippet view, can't see to what extent they are discussed in the book proper; page 91 has a box? about it, but I can read only the first line saying that the family belongs to one of the old clans in the city. The snippet view of few paragraphs in Edward Obertyński (1987). Gawędy o starej Gdyni. Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza. suggests this book devotes several paragraphs to it ("Musiałem długo szukać, zanim trafiłem na ślady pozwalające na odtworzenie sagi rodu Tutkowskich. Część mieszkającej jeszcze w Gdyni rodziny już nie pamiętała o swoich przodkach..."). I am a bit worried that the article may contain some WP:OR, but the family is probably notable, through it's a minor footnote type of historical material. But there is probably sufficient coverage in those local historians for GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piotrus, the pl wiki article seems to have been created by the same person. The items you found are sufficient to demonstrate that the family existed and the article is not a hoax, but don't seem sufficient to establish notability (really, they are scrapping the bottom of a barrel). Given that the article is likely full of WP:OR and that there is no way to clean it up due to lack of sources, I suggest deletion. Renata (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is borderline. I would be fine with merging it to some Gdynia history article, but we don't really have a good target. I am standing by my weak keep as I think the two sources presented suffice for GNG, if just at the very edge of the guideline spirit. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Piotrus.4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Aurand[edit]

Calvin Aurand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Only real claim to notability is being official photographer for One Direction for four years, and there appear to be no in-depth sources online that discuss Mr. Aurand in any further detail than this fact. None of the references in the article before the One Direction era mention Mr. Aurand at all, and almost all of the 1D-related sources are no more than "the band's photographer Calvin Aurand" or his name credited at the bottom of one of their pictures. The only source that has anything more than just passing mentions is the MTV reference, which is a primary source interview and doesn't say anything about Mr. Aurand, because naturally he is talking about the band, not himself. Includes several references to Wikipedia and iMDb which don't count as reliable sources. In short, this is WP:INHERITED notability based on his relationship with the group. Richard3120 (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Photography is one of those professions that's tough for Wikipedia, because what makes you notable within the world of photography is something that doesn't make you notable on Wikipedia. We want in-depth coverage about the subject in reliable sources; photographers want their photos used in prominent places. Impressive photo credits don't necessarily translate to WP:GNG though, and though I see there are a lot of credits in high-profile publications, I'm not seeing significant coverage of the subject himself. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject of the article passes WP:CREATIVE as defined by Wikipedia: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The subject of this article has created images, live footage, and documentary films covering various well-known musical artists. Passing WP:CREATIVE on the basis of the aforementioned, contradicts being deleted due to WP:INHERITED.--Freyja10 20:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freyja10 (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: Freyja10 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Can you show that the work Mr. Aurand has created has become well known or been the subject of an independent article? Richard3120 (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. This is one of those cases where someone has done a lot of substantial work behind the scenes creatively but there is absolutely no independent sources to verify that information. The only sources of significance I could find were not independent of the subject. I found his photographs in magazines and newspapers and in One Direction publications, but those media were made as an employee for those organizations and are essentially primary sources (which is fine for verifying he did something but not great for much else). I found absolutely nothing on the creative work he has done in documentary and film besides imdb which is not considered an independent source. There's no critical commentary on his photography or his work as a producer or film maker. In short, its a BLP without any independent supporting references, and keeping it just isn't an option unless we can find some independent sources. BLP sourcing concerns trump WP:CREATIVE.4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkalocka[edit]

Kirkalocka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 21:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 21:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete reads like an advertisement. No more significant than similar farms or businesses that have no Wiki page/ Teraplane (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep its a historical sheep station and homestead, its the location of 3 previously unknown plant species. Its was one of the early stations to transition away from grazing sheep to providing tourist accommodation and conservation. The article is only a stub, a quick search on Trove reveals a significant number of sources related to the location https://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=Kirkalocka . It should also be noted that Western Australian media outlet archives arent available on the web for period between 1950's to the last 6 months, rendering google next to useless to assess WA subject importance. Gnangarra 00:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your first two sentences don't add anything to notability. Please read below for the response to the link provided. Your last sentence reflects WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 07:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had added to the article about its role in use of museling in australia, which shows the stations activities were covered in across australia as per the sources, before you even made this comment. I wasn't saying there must be sources I'm saying there are sources and it is Notable. Gnangarra 11:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've add a few more sources to the talk page these will require in person further exploration. Gnangarra 12:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted the remaining promotional text. A simple news search shows quite a bit about Kirkalocka, so it should easily pass our geographic notability guidelines. I've added one of the sources I've found. SportingFlyer T·C 04:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Pastoral leases in Western Australia are notable locations of landholdings in range land areas, with a whole range of land types, geological and geographical features, as well historial sites that tie into the complexities of the landscape of the pilbara, kimberley and goldfields regions of the state. There is adequate material about rangeland land mangement that substantiates almost every pastoral holding of its sort as both notable and potentially related across a wide range of topics. GNG is not a guide to such an item Trove is -https://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=kirkalocka JarrahTree 05:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe evidence to back up your claims? Where does it say that it has "a whole range of land types, geological and geographical feature". We cannot assess the coverage in the sources provided by the link as we do not have the sources. Therefore, we cannot make claims that the source hold information when we don't even have access to the sources. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 07:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick of newspaper articles here, which you can clearly view. Lots old and routine, but clearly passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cricket match, a new bike, a fierce kangaroo, and a dead garden. You'll have to be more specific, I still can't see anything about "a whole range of land types, geological and geographical feature". Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 18:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The place is large enough to have been written about in terms of the geological record. I'm commenting it passes WP:GNG, making the necessity of placating you by going to the library and getting a copy of the book unnecessary, especially given per WP:GEOLAND we have a presumption these sorts of articles should be okay, and it's been clearly verified. SportingFlyer T·C 23:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the link you'll see 1,000+ news sources, all the geological sources, as well various government gazettes, and scientific journals that relate to the locations, plus more. Gnangarra 11:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A sheep station doesn't fall under WP:GEOLAND, does it? Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 12:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sportingflyer. --Doncram (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is closer to 'keep' than 'delete', but there is one compelling argument for ONEEVENT and another that it meets GNG. The general lack of participation surrounding these policy-based arguments make it impossible to close as other than "no consensus". 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yoyoka Soma[edit]

Yoyoka Soma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There was a burst of publicity over this video in June 2018, and then a few press mentions in May 2019 when the girl was on the Ellen show and met Dave Grohl. But this looks like it's stretching the GNG unless there's a lot more coverage, longevity, etc. JamesG5 (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The reason I added this page is that my daughters and I were trying to find more information about this drummer and we were shocked to find out that she had no wikipedia page. In my many years of using wikipedia, I can't ever remember not finding a page for a topic I wanted to look up! I figured this was a good lesson to teach my daughters: in a shared encyclopedia, if you find that something is wrong or missing, you should fix it. So we did! I'm not a GNG expert, but in my view this girl is extremely notable as a child prodigy. Isn't being written about in Billboard, Rolling Stone, NPR, UPI, CBC, etc a pretty high bar? Not to mention being on American TV twice... David P Simons (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I've done a bit of GNG research, and I think she makes the cut based on this evidence: From WP:NMUSIC, she only needs to meet one of the 12 criteria. She arguably meets requirements 1 and 12, and possibly requirement 9, because she was listed as a "Finalist" in the 2018 Hit Like A Girl contest ( https://hitlikeagirlcontest.com/videos/2018-finalist/ ), though I don't know her actual final rank. David P Simons (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @David P Simons:, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! First off, I wanted to let you know that I greatly appreciate your edits in good faith. When we refer to the topic of the article being not notable, it means that they have had significant coverage over a reasonable period of time, and not just famous for one event. Yoyoka Soma may have been covered by reliable, independent sources, but the fact remains that the notability that the topic received is not substantial enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. You did edit with a noble intention to further the wiki, which I applaud you for, but we want to make sure that all of the topics have substantial notability. I will refrain from voting because I have not investigated enough into this topic, and I could be wrong on the topic of notability. I only wanted to elaborate on the nomination rationale and what is written in the article as of now. Will return to make a vote soon enough. In the meantime David, you can leave a message on my talk page if you would like help in understanding some of our policies on what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, so that a misunderstanding like this wouldn't happen in the future. Cheers! Utopes (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: So am I incorrect that meeting one (or more) of the 12 requirements on that page is enough for notability for a musician?

David P Simons (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I think she passes GNG/NMUSIC #1 (and possibly NMUSIC #12), though I agree with the nom that it's a stretch, and she seems to be notable solely for one video that went viral. Here's my assessment of the currently cited sources:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Zildjian	?	e-commerce site	?	✘ No
Facebook - Great Big Story	?	advertorial from LEGO	?	✘ No
NPR			~ Primarily about her viral video, with a few sentences of bio	~ Partial
Youtube - Kaneaiyoyoka	Her family's YouTube channel		?	✘ No
Billboard			~ Primarily about her appearance on Ellen	~ Partial
Kyodo News				✔ Yes
Vimeo	Video posted to her account		A few paragraphs of bio in the description	✘ No
CBC				✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

-- Scott Burley (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draft and incubate for six months. bd2412 T 22:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've cleaned up the article, though I think all of the above discussion still applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "delete". Compelling arguments were made for a re-direct, but it is not at all clear what the redirect target should be. Therefore closing as delete, but there should be no objections if re-created as a re-direct. Since there is no reliable sourcing, deleting instead of searching for an appropriate redirect target is appropriate per WP:PRESERVE., 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hackergotchi[edit]

Hackergotchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I found no notability for this blog term per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment given that the topic is about blogging it will be hard to find normal RIS. However the term has survived in use for more than a decade and there are certainly multiple sources referring to it, so it may be notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Most of the sources are from blogs, but a quick WP:BEFORE search would have found [5] and [6] in google scholar and [7] from linux.com. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Comte0: I did follow BEFORE, as I already stated. I can't even read either source because this isn't in English and this needs a subscription. Would you care to share how in depth the coverage is? We can't have an article only based on instructions on how to create one. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • You're right, the sources I posted do not meet the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. Sorry about that. Comte0 (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • When it comes to BEFORE or anything else, don't assume that an editor knows a language other than English and that they have a subscription to a source. SL93 (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well, all sources must be evaluated, including the ones in languages you do not speak. Requiring that all sources be in english leads to Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn’t invalidate them! I only asked you how big of a mention the term received in those sources. SL93 (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Blog. The only refernence of any use I could find, which Comte0 id'd, is the IEEE paper but the term appears in exactly one sentence about it, as to define the term. Nothing else is sufficient RS to use here. But its a valid search term, so redirect w/ brief def in Blog works. --Masem (t) 22:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reliable sourcing found, obscure neologism unlikely to attract notability or sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like a Redirect somewhere is warranted. It's not made up, but it's also an unsourced article about something we have other articles about, like avatar (computing) (most likely) and signature block (the only page to actually mention it). Otherwise Delete, as I don't see enough to satisfy WP:GNG — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection to redirecting to blog if it's mention there, btw. But there's nothing to merge here as there are no sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as it’s primarily a description of term, would the sourcing available support a copy to Wiktionary? Mccapra (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect seem the most reasonable, it's clear there isn't significant coverage in RS'. The passing mention at Signature block#Internet forums could be a redirect location, it shouldn't be too hard to expand that line to include a simple definition. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P Nation[edit]

P Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

None of the references contain in-depth information on the company or are based on announcements, fails WP:NCORP. Merge any relevant information into Psy article. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep P-Nation is home to many notable artists, and is literally run by Psy. A label is notable for its products and it has many famous products and a famous founder.-K-popguardian (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is not inherited, therefore having "notable artists" as clients and being owned/run by Psy does not confer notability onto the company. There are no references that provide in-depth information on the company that also meet WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with nominator, the fact that it exists is not enough. No in-depth coverage and nothing really notable. Evaders99 (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable source. Barca (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to object to the fact that companies like CI Entertainment and Blockberry Creative have similar pages with even less notability other than artists, but have been around alot longer with little contestion about their existence.-K-popguardian (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Norman Fucking Rockwell!. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Love Song (Lana Del Rey song)[edit]

Love Song (Lana Del Rey song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. This article has no independent notability. It also provides no more information than is already provided at Norman Fucking Rockwell! and Lana Del Rey discography. It relies only on an article about the release date of its album and the one chart in which it charted. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Norman Fucking Rockwell! per WP:NSONGS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Norman Fucking Rockwell! per WP:NSONGS. Aoba47 (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jekaterina Fiodorova[edit]

Jekaterina Fiodorova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable performer. Major claim to fame is Eurovision audition and participation in TV show. Renata (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Intuit. -- Scott Burley (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intuit Canada[edit]

Intuit Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Both as written and including potential sources, fails WP:NCORP due to near-exclusive reliance on WP:Primary sources. Of the included seven (7) references, ref #2 doesn't relate to this subsidiary, refs #3-4 are primary sources and refs #5-7 cover this subsidiary in either a tangential way or by making passing mentions, covering the company's non-notable product announcements, routine business operations, and regular company-to-company business partnerships or other arrangements. As such, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH as there are insufficient sources that provide WP:SIGCOV significant coverage.

Following my WP:BEFORE procedures, I conducted Google news and web searches with "Intuit Canada" enclosed in quotation marks in a phrase search and, of the potential sources I was able to find, I was only able uncover press coverage that covers trivial matters such as business partnerships, product announcements, pricing changes, and the like. The only potentially reliable source that covers this subsidiary in any significant way is ref #1 (a University of Alberta article)—but that's only one source.

Now, that's not to say that this company, as part of the larger Intuit, is not notable, but as a Canadian subsidiary/branch plant operation, it fails WP:NCORP. So, my primary recommendation would be to merge this article into a much condensed (a few paragraphs at most) section of Intuit. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Added Comment from Nominator: Note also that of the Google Scholar searches, any results mentioning "Intuit Canada" were just in-text citations referencing company-commissioned studies—nothing about this company. Likewise for the Google Books searches, similar story whereby they are only mentioned as the publisher of the monograph, mentioned in a very tangential or passing way, or one of their executives was quoted or a company-sponsored survey cited in support of an unrelated topic. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

merge--Dreerwin (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. The real story here seems to be WINTAX, if it truly was "Canada's first Microsoft Windows-based personal tax preparation software", so if someone wants to document that history in a reliable source, we might have an article here. As is, an upmerge seems like the obvious option. Guettarda (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Guettarda, Thanks, yeah. There could be merit to WinTax/QuickTax as a software product article, but as a geographic subsidiary of Intuit, it does make sense to merge this, doesn't it? Doug Mehus (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dmehus: absolutely. Guettarda (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Ellman[edit]

Kevin Ellman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSICIAN. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:MILL; alternately, smerge into Utopia (band), for which he was a drummer. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Fida Akram Tozo[edit]

Ali Fida Akram Tozo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

someone can easily argue that this article WP:BIO. failed to meet any criteria regarding an advertisement and notability. These sources are the smallest coverage. Not all of the Dramas he worked on met Wikipedia criteria, fail WP:GNG. Each Source of this article is taken from different actors and actresses. i did not find any bangla source about these article. all of source not related with article, fail WP:RS. i wanted to use speedy deletion tag for quickly remove this article but due to some of source, so i did not --Nahal^(T) 11:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Nahal^(T) 11:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. --Nahal^(T) 11:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 10:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Men-related deletion discussions.-Nahal^(T) 10:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Didn't found enough notability. Article has 13 refs but Ali Fida Akram Tozo isn't main subject none of them, just some passing mentions. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:OUTCOMES. The formatting and sourcing is such a problem that alone is cause to delete. In addition, the essential claim to fame is that of a producer associated with films starring other actors. We usually delete articles about producers and writers, absent clear notability. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Criterion 2(d): nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course. No prejudice against a policy-compliant re-nomination. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 17:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waterman–Smith Building[edit]

Waterman–Smith Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems to be non-notable and there are a LOT of conflicts between editors, several of which have suggested a XFD. BigDwiki (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. BigDwiki (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Unless you can tell me where "conflict among editors" is a valid reason for deletion. An anon IP (likely a sock or meatpuppet) is the only editor who's suggested deletion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Submitter's note: Multiple users have suggested deletion- here and here. Every user that disagrees with User:Ohnoitsjamie has been accused of being a sock and has been closed as unfounded. BigDwiki (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars Online[edit]

Scholars Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only references are to its own publications. Not very notable. Rathfelder (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No only 'not very notable', but spam to boot. Fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy in The Jellyland (2018 Series)[edit]

Guy in The Jellyland (2018 Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Same topic as Guy in The Jellyland, which is nominated for deletion. Editor removed CSD template. Cannot find any evidence that this film/series exists, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOVIE. Schazjmd (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article has since been deleted (CSD G3), but I can't find any instructions on how to withdraw/close this nomination which is no longer needed. Schazjmd (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax content. Pure invention of editor. This series does not and will never exist. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transtech[edit]

Transtech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - another piece of non-notable fancruft. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pyro (Transformers)[edit]

Pyro (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:GNG. If there is an appropriate list article, redirect would be fine. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Windbreaker (Transformers)[edit]

Windbreaker (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The "rationale" given in the first AfD makes my brain hurt. A clear fail of WP:GNG. Transformers, roll out... to make my jacket?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Moving the other article is left to ordinary editorial action. RL0919 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Berbalang[edit]

Berbalang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely non-notable D&D creature. Outside of the handful of primary sources, there is nothing discussing this version of the creature in any way that denotes notability. Searching for sources only brings up information on the actual, mythological creature, Berbalang (legendary creature). Being the actual primary version of the name, that article should probably be moved to this space. Rorshacma (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If it's deleted then obviously Berbalang (legendary creature) should be moved to Berbalang. It should be the primary topic anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Move the legendary creature article to the main namespace as the obvious primary topic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move Berbalang (legendary creature) to Berbalang. A short mention could be added to the main Berbalang article explaining that they appear in Dungeons & Dragons. Not a very active user (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noroz (israeli rapper)[edit]

Noroz (israeli rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable musician, failing WP:NMUSIC. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed pointer on article creator's talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless real sources are found. I tried to clean up the article, but I couldn't find any sources. As I don't speak Hebrew, it's possible there is something there, but using YouTube as a source for even the fact that the songs are associated with him is problematic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Delete without prejudice to it being recreated in future should sufficient sources be found. The article as it stands has no worthwhile sources (all of them being YouTube) and I cannot find anything on the (admittedly English-language) Web. Thus fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Potentially it is WP:TOOSOON. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mangur (Kurdish tribe)[edit]

Mangur (Kurdish tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced for over a decade and the Mangur is a small tribe so one could question its notability (https://books.google.com/books?id=o1NsBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA377&dq=&hl=da&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWjpuv9qrlAhVdAxAIHS19AL8Q6AEIQjAD#v=onepage&q=%22Mangur%20tribe%22&f=false) Semsurî (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Semsurî (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep I’ve added some material and refs. There are dozens of sources on the Mangur in a Google books search, though many are only snippet views. In any case from the sources I can see it is clear that notability is established. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are references to the Mangur people in journals [8][9][10][11], and also many scattered references to the people in books - [12][13][14]. While these sources do not give substantial information about the tribe - they mostly give a few sentences or a paragraph or two (one or two may have more), collectively I think they are sufficient to indicate notability. Hzh (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:GNG, improvements to article made, and sources highlighted by above editors reflect its wikinotableness. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. It has been extensively improved. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Motikan[edit]

Motikan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced for a decade Semsurî (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Semsurî (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I’ve added sources without looking in Turkish, Kurdish or Farsi, and ignoring google book snippet views. There’s certainly enough to support the notability of this topic. Mccapra (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. This is another article on a Kurdish tribe that has been fixed recently. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Loop (concept)[edit]

Loop (concept) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

"About us"/promo tone, appears to fail WP:NCORP/WP:GNG - no significant coverage in external sources (excluding the subject-owned sources, all of the sources I checked were tangential mention of the company or owner in a list of awards and were likely submitted by the subject). Wasn't able to do a thorough BEFORE search, since there's more than one startup with this name and it's a common noun. creffett (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC) creffett (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very promotional and reads like an attempt to use Wikipedia as a web host, speaking on behalf of Loop, speaking of what "Loop wants", "Loop's vision", what "Loop believes". Even titling it with the disambiguator "(concept)" comes off as a marketing touch, given that the text places it as, alternately, a movement and an incubator. Largoplazo (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G11. I see the article has already been tagged with this, but I am lodging my support for a speedy deletion here. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:19, 20 October 2019 (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) Natg 19 (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Herki[edit]

Herki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced for about a decade Semsurî (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Semsurî (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep added a encyclopedic reference found on the German WP, subject seems noteworthy enough to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Initramfs (talk • contribs) 13:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep added refs. There are sufficient in English without recourse to other languages. Mccapra (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:GNG, thanks to above editors for improving article with sourced information. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plush Hall Films[edit]

Plush Hall Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG Wakowako (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darî[edit]

Darî (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced and couldn't find sources for this tribe Semsurî (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Semsurî (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unable find any sources in any language for this term or for other related terms used in the article. Mccapra (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:Original Research. I am pretty sure the author somehow confused the Dari language as a tribe name. The language page should really be at Darî.4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Rouba[edit]

Heather Rouba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Created by COI account and tagged for notability since 2010. Lacks reliable independent sources and not notable. Mccapra (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even the winners of major state titles like Miss Oklahoma and Miss Oklahoma USA are not default notable, minor competitiions like Mrs. Oklahoma do not even come close to propelling their winners to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not describe achievements for which notability is inherent. I cannot find sources that aren't local so does not have the WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. She's just a state pageant winner and otherwise leads a productive but rather ordinary life per this recent local news article: [15].4meter4 (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poing (video game)[edit]

Poing (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to have any reliable sources in existence indicating notability. ​​ flowing dreams (talk page) 12:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. flowing dreams (talk page) 12:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A clear failure of WP:GNG, as there are no multiple significant reliable and independent sources that cover the subject. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see the page was nominated for PROD by Dgpop and then endorsed by Izno. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I removed the above mentioned prod on procedural grounds (previous prod in 2009), no opinion on notability. There probably is not much more RS coverage than mentioned in the article: I also found 1/3 page in the (Italian) Amiga Magazine (volume 5, issue 38, October 1992, p. 79; featured on their coverdisk) and similar or shorter articles in other Amiga magazines (eg. Amiga Format, issue 112, July 1998, p. 97; again on their coverdisk). Pavlor (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete contains only one reference to one page in a book. The lack of references fails to establish any notablility; clearly fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Contains only one reference and does not establish enough notability to warrant its own article. Fails WP:GNG  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note you already "voted" delete 4 days ago... Pavlor (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor: Oh I must not have realised, thanks for letting me know, I will get rid of my second vote.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus that notability is still not demonstrated, with COI editing from a now confirmed sock. I will also watchlist and page and salt the page if we get a similar recreation Nosebagbear (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Dawar[edit]

Mr Dawar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Previously deleted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Dawar. Non-notable artist with references mainly to social media or other unreliable sites. As previously, also poorly written and very likely an autobiography, COI related or 'fan' piece. Eagleash (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Tripodandstudentcard (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)What's wrong with you guys why always you delete this article why are you jelous why you guys didnt saw others to come up why you guys have so much ego what you lose if this article beging live ? Is you lose money is you lose your life please stop doing this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.12.209.142 (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC) — Tripodandstudentcard (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Westrextravels (talk • contribs). [reply]

  Thank you for your comments. Please note, new posts go at the bottom of the thread. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt: Poorly-formatted and likely auto-biographical article on a subject with no indication of significant coverage from any reliable sources. It's also unlikely that anything has changed from the last AfD which was only a month ago. Should be salted since re-creation by sockpuppets is now a demonstrated issue. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My rationale from the previous discussion still holds true. Utopes (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ankyloglossia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tongue-Tied: How a Tiny String Under the Tongue Impacts Nursing, Speech, Feeding, and More[edit]

Tongue-Tied: How a Tiny String Under the Tongue Impacts Nursing, Speech, Feeding, and More (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not seeing how this passes Wikipedia:Notability (books). Neither of the reviews appears to meet criterion #1. Edwardx (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect this minor book to Ankyloglossia where it could possibly get a one-line mention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Tessaracter (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy In The Jellyland[edit]

Guy In The Jellyland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Andrew Base (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no indication anywhere that this is a real thing, much less a real thing that just isn't notable. (edited to add When this article was nominated for deletion, editor created a new version, Guy in The Jellyland (2018 Series)), which I've nominated for deletion after editor removed speedy tag.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2019 (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 redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Cain[edit]

Commander Cain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence this passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. BEFORE shows only primary sources/mentions in passing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters as non-notable, per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book)[edit]

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Previous AfD lacked any participation and also lacked a proper deletion rationale, therefore I am renominating it on the basis that this subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK and the subject violates WP:FRINGE. Bharatiya29 10:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fail WP:N, WP:NBOOK. Here are the sources and their analysis:

• 1: Prakash, Ishwar (9 April 2019). "संस्कृत के क्षेत्र में विशिष्ट योगदान देने पर डा. वेद प्रकाश को मिला राष्ट्रपति सम्मान". Haryana Express. Retrieved 10 August 2019.

• Nothing about the book in this dead link.

• 2: "डॉ वेद प्रकाश उपाध्याय को मिलेगा राष्ट्रपति सम्मान-2018". khaskhabar. 20 August 2018. Retrieved 10 August 2019.

• Nothing about the book.[16]

• 3: "डॉ. वेद प्रकाश उपाध्याय को राष्टऊपति सम्मान". aggarjanpatrika.com. 9 April 2019. Retrieved 10 August 2019.

• Nothing about the book.[17]

• 4: "President Awards the Certificate of Honour and Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman for the Year 2018". pib.nic.in. Press Information Bureau. Retrieved 10 August 2019.

• Nothing about the book.[18]

• 5: "PDF President Awards the Certificate of Honour and Maharshi ... - MHRD". mhrd.gov.in. Ministry of Human Resource Development. Retrieved 10 August 2019.

• Nothing about the book in this dead link.

• 6: "President Award". www.sanskrit.nic.in. Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan. Retrieved 10 August 2019.

• Nothing about the book.

• 7: Upādhyāya, Veda Prakāśa (1969). Kalki avatāra aura Muhammada Sāhaba (in Hindi). Viśva Ekatā Prakāśana. Retrieved 26 July 2019.

• Description about the author in this unreliable source. Nothing about the book.

• 8: Khan, Q.S. Holy Vedas and Islam. Q.S. Khan's Books. p. 44. ISBN 9789380778112. Retrieved 26 July 2019.

• Passing mention in an unreliable source.

• 9: Pavitra Ved aur Islam Dharm (in Hindi). Q.S. Khan's Books. p. 33.

• Passing mention in an unreliable source.

• 10: Vidyarthi, Abdul Haque (1997). Muhammad in World Scriptures. Dar-ul-Isha'at Kutub-e-Islamia. p. 338. ISBN 9788190053785. Retrieved 26 July 2019.

• Passing mention in an unreliable missionary source.

• 11: Rizvi, Sayyid Saeed Akhtar (2001). Prophecies about the Holy Prophet of Islam in Hindu, Christian, Jewish & Parsi Scriptures. Bilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania. p. 8. ISBN 9789987620210. Retrieved 26 July 2019.

• Unreliable missionary source.

• 12: Abdul Haque Vidyarthi (1990). Muhammad in World Scriptures. Adam publishers.

• No page number or any verification.

• 13: Abdul Haq Vidyarthi; U. Ali (1990). Muhammad in Parsi, Hindu & Buddhist Scriptures. IB.

• No page number or any verification.

• 14: "OUR DIALOGUE * Kaliki Avtar". www.islamicvoice.com (November 1997). Islamic Voice. Retrieved 31 May 2019.

• Unreliable source not proving notability.

• 15: Mir Abdul Majeed (15 February 2005). "ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVES: Prophet Muhammad in Hindu Scriptures". www.milligazette.com. The Milli Gazette. Retrieved 31 May 2019.

• Dubious opinion piece which says the book is "recently published book" while the article claiming it was published in 1969.

• 16: Khan, Q. S. Muhammad Sahab: Holy Narashansa (in Urdu). Urdu-Books. Retrieved 10 August 2019.

• Unreliable publisher and just a passing mention.

• 17: Pāla, Alakarañjana (1995). Agnigarbhā Kāśmīra (in Bengali). Sāhityaloka. p. 101. Retrieved 10 August 2019.

• Irrelevant passing mention on unreliable source.

• 18: Sikand, Yoginder (2008). Pseudo-messianic movements in contemporary Muslim South Asia. Global Media Publications. ISBN 9788188869282. Retrieved 10 August 2019.

• Passing mention

• 19: Indian Journal of Secularism: IJS : a Journal of Centre for Study of Society & Secularism. The Centre. 2005. Retrieved 10 August 2019.

• Unreliable self published source

• 20: Muhammad, Nur (2000). The Deendar Anjuman. Nur Muhammad. p. 64. Retrieved 10 August 2019.

• Unreliable self published source

• 21: Abidin, Danial Zainal (2007). Islam the Misunderstood Religion. PTS Millennia. p. 93. ISBN 9789833604807. Retrieved 10 August 2019.

• Self published unreliable source

• 22: Unal, Ali; Gultekin, Harun (2013). The Prophet Promised in World Scriptures. Tughra Books. ISBN 9781597848237. Retrieved 10 August 2019.

• Passing mention irrelevant to notability of the book or the subject.

• 23: Sikand, Yoginder (2004). Muslims in India Since 1947: Islamic Perspectives on Inter-Faith Relations. Routledge. ISBN 9781134378258. Retrieved 10 August 2019.

• Passing mention irrelevant to any notability of the book or subject.

Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reference 1 dead link has been repaired, see here, https://haryanaexpress.in/2019/04/09/in-the-field-of-sanskrit/ Lazy-restless 15:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Few details about a non-notable author does not actually help. Subject still fails WP:NBOOK. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another dead link repaired. https://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/PR_PRESIDENT_AWARD_2018.pdf Lazy-restless 01:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some new references has been added, check it out. Going to add more. The book is highly notable: It is the most used, most renowned, most quoted and most controversial book about hindu-muslim unity in India, the book and its trilogy is recognised the highestly used reference about scriptural similarity between hindus and muslims, also the writer, he is one of the high-profile leading indian public scholar and educator of sanskrit language. But trying to show it as not notable is a religius sectarian attempt of indian wiki users. If there is disagreement with the title,then I propose to change myself the title as "Muhammad and hindu scriptures" like Muhammad and the Bible article, and then I will rewrite the article with additional references with other related biblical sources. Lazy-restless 01:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable book written by a non-notable author. --RaviC (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per evaluation of sources posted above. Tessaracter (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google scolar link https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Kalki+Avatar+and+Muhammad&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DYKA4u5EnKz4J. New references:^{[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]}</ref>^{[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]}

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination effectively withdrawn by requesting deletion of the AFD page by the nominator (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MetArt[edit]

MetArt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Awards are not prestigious. Störm (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that there was insufficient reliable sourcing that was actually about the subject. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina Video[edit]

Catalina Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find any mentions that go to notability. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Surely a studio that produced around 500 movies, mostly in the 1980s and 1990s including some of the most well-known titles and stars is notable and should have the entry expanded not deleted Cannonmc (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Expansion requires support from reliable sources. The article does not have them, and independent searches yield only trivial mentions, failing WP:CORPDEPTH as the nominator states. Porn films are run off in large numbers. That's why x-number of films was taken out of WP:PORNBIO 13 years ago. If this studio was as influential as you say, where are the independent reliable sources that attest to that? • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as complete WP:CORP failure. Even if you count the porn trade press as semi-reliable, their coverage consists of repackaged press releases and routine release or change of personnel announcements. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom and @Gene93k:. I couldn't find one Google web search that was about this pornography producer. There were lots of videos that showed up in the results, presumably some of which were this producer's productions, but nothing that counts as WP:SIGCOV. Of the Google news search results, again, little if anything beyond passing mentions. Lots of results related to "Catalina video" or "Catalina (video)" and similar—nothing about this company. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Combat Zone (studio)[edit]

Combat Zone (studio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

XBIZ is not WP:RS. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:CORP. References provided are strictly routine in nature. Independent search for RS coverage yielded nothing. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and Gene93k on the WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV.. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom.4meter4 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Steven Toushin. RL0919 (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bijou Video[edit]

Bijou Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails various notability standards including WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While the company's founder and the Operation PostPorn case may be notable, Bijou Video's role is not supported by references to reliable sources. No reliable sources to support the article's claims and, more important, nothing to support WP:CORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the article on its founder, as much of his notability stems from repeated obscenity arrests and trials. Much of that, in turn, stems from his production of porn. While the studio doesn't inherit his notability, neither is it an implausible search term and readers are best served the connected notable information by his biography. Madness ^Darkness 19:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Madness.4meter4 (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete the current page, and redirect to XVideos, as redirects are cheap. bd2412 T 01:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XNXX[edit]

XNXX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Deleted previously. This website lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to XVideos. This website is one of the most popular websites on the whole internet. People will search for "XNXX" on Wikipedia. People Google "XNXX" more often than the search for "Wikipedia". We should think of the reader and redirect to XVideos, where this content should be moved as a subsection. WP:Redirects are cheap. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We should think of the reader ... ROFL. 🤣 With all due respect, the people about whom you're thinking are called "wankers" not "readers". There is a big difference. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• With all due respect, I've never once gone to Wikipedia to rub one out, yet I have looked up our articles on sex-related topics many times. So, no, they are readers, and your attack on such users is unwarranted. WP:NOTCENSORED Madness ^Darkness 22:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It has better references than many of the other similar articles.Rathfelder (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G11 and G4 criteria: Before coming here, I read the "article". Asides from a very short description, it consists of stats only. WP:NOTSTATS. It is an advertisement, plain and simple. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Xvideos as suggested above and redirect the link. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Do not merge. Not only does XNXX fail WP:NWEB, covering under XVideos would be trivia. The two sites are part of the same network of shell companies. That's about all you can say about XNXX. Redirect may be cheap, but they should be useful. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a classic example of an article that "should" be notable, but isn't. Notability is assessed by lasting significant coverage in multiple independent sources and that just isn't there. A website this popular, one would expect, would attract that and become notable just like Pornhub, XVideos, etc etc. However, the coverage isn't there, and therefore it isn't notable and that's that. Oppose merge per Gene93k; if it were deemed appropriate to write an article on the overall owner or a list of their porn sites (I don't see any reason to do so, myself) that would be a valid target for a redirect & merge. Absent a suitable location, deletion is what we're left with. "Redirect[s] may be cheap, but they should be useful." Agree completely. Madness ^Darkness 22:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saud Mansuri[edit]

Saud Mansuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable actor, fails WP:GNG it seems to be WP:TOOSOON. Meeanaya (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV; the sources are mere listings, and of dubious reliability. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR too. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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