< 23 August	25 August >

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MVaaS[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article on a WP:NEOLOGISM that does not appear to have been picked up. There are some hits for the term "MVaaS" (e.g., [1]) but they are not often about "managed video as a service", the subject of this article. The one linked, for instance, is an article on "materialized view as a service". AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2008-05 ✗ deleted

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bindhushree[edit]

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

Case of WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NACTOR. The numerous references in the article boil down to two websites, News Bugz and Chitrasanthe, both of which are unreliable. Zindor (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, unreliable references, all boil down to two main sources. Whiteguru (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 18:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Johnston (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Highest level of play was the ECHL but was never a First Team All-Star nor did he achieve preeminent honours. He did not achieve either of these in the WHL as well. Article was created by a user who created hundreds of non-notable stubs which resulted in a permanent ban from creating articles. Tay87 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Tay87 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a player who does not meet our inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NHOCKEY. Interestingly, the stats section of the article - which shows over 100 AHL games, consistent with the old NHOCKEY notability standard - is not consistent with the stats shown on either Elite Prospects or the Hockey Database. Given that those sources only show 1 game at the AHL level, and a very common name, I am disinclined to perform an extensive search for GNG sources. But if someone wants to and finds multiple reliable sources with significant coverage (and it is plausible given a fairly long career) I would be happy to change my !vote. Rlendog (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rlendog: I have fixed the stats, probably a copy-n-paste error of a different player's template when it was added in February 2020. Yosemiter (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Yosemiter: Thanks. That makes sense now. More confirmation that this player is likely non-notable. Rlendog (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:HOCKEY guidelines. Flibirigit (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winners of major U.S. crossword matches and tournaments[edit]

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

This topic fails WP:NLIST, because it is not discussed as a group by reliable independent sources, none of these tournaments are enough to make somebody notable as a matter of merely winning, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, 'major' is rather subjective, particularly in a listing of crossword tournaments, there seems to be no clearly defined criteria here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Major" appears to be whatever the article creator wants it to be, and the tournaments with articles already list their winners there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN. Non notable tournament and winners. Ajf773 (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails WP:LISTN is not discussed as a group // Timothy :: talk 02:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus, albeit weak, that this individual has been cited frequently enough to WP:CREATIVE#1 Vanamonde (Talk) 02:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philip McHarris[edit]

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

While I sympathise with many of the things he advocates for on a personal level, I just don't see how McHarris meets WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. Just having opinion pieces published in well known newspapers doesn't, afaics, make somebody notable unless they have been shown to be widely cited or reviewed. Other than that, I see he has been quoted and/or interviewed for his opinions in several publications, but don't feel that makes him necessarily notable , given that the coverage is about a social issue and not coverage of him. Further, he's not quite at the level of being considered an important or major figure in his field yet, so I'd consider this likely a case where it is rather too soon for him to be notable. It's admittedly a borderline case, so taking to AFD Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per either WP:NPROF#7 (has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity) or WP:GNG. He is cited as an expert on police violence by several mainstream media organizations: [2] (Wired); [3] (WRCB; piece was republished elsewhere), and was profiled/cited in FiveThirtyEight ([4]). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he was cited as a "a doctoral candidate in sociology at Yale University and lead research and policy associate at the Community Resource Hub for Safety and Accountability", which doesn't really mean he's recognized as an expert to me. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is sought out for comment from multiple independent news organizations and for opinion pieces from several more, that strikes me as fairly strong evidence that they are regarded as an expert in the field. He needn't have completed his dissertation in order to gain the status of expert. Of course, he is not necessarily the most expert or prominent in his field, but I think the evidence shows that he is regarded as an authority. I agree, however, that it is somewhat of a close call. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hello all! I am still new to wikipedia and have been using the Philip McHarris as an entry and to improve wikipedia editing, rather than editing already polished articles as I want to improve my abilities as much as possible. The individual seems notable to me from my reading of the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. I found that he was also appeared and was cited as, "Sociologist and expert on race, punishment and policing" on Axios on HBO [5] along with Stacey Abrams, Ed Bastian, and Larry Kudlow. Axios the documentary series appears to typically interview individuals of notability.Wikiedits5891 (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also have worked on improving the article's sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines, as many of the previous ones were from primary sources.Wikiedits5891 (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see no cause to pass WP:Prof. Notability may be found for WP:GNG for his activism. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Passes as a civil rights activists for the Black Lives Matter and as an academic + expert on political science in the US. His publications obviously indicate his expertise. --Iockyrice (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject has been widely covered as an expert in the field of police issues, as a civil rights activist and as an academic. He has received wide coverage in traditional publications as well as appearing in a documentary series. The subject easily passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BIO. AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinocchio (1992 film)[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources found during search to establish notability for this direct to video film. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is riding off the back of established resources for this fairy tale. Adventures of Pinocchio are well known. Whiteguru (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability isn't inherited, WP:NOTINHERITED. Sources need to be for this film specifically, can you provide any? Donaldd23 (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not coverage of this film itself. Just because a story is notable does not mean every film, book or TV show that includes it automatically becomes notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella (1994 film)[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources found during search to establish notability for this direct to video film. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reviews to show it was a notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hercules (1995 film)[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources found during search to establish notability for this direct to video film. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping Beauty (1995 film)[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources found during search to establish notability for this direct to video film. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Symphony Orchestra[edit]

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

Non notable amateur orchestra. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of notability through multiple reliable, independent sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A community orchestra covered only in local media. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Wonderland (1995 film)[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources found during search to establish notability for this direct to video film. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 11:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one club tracks of 2020 (Australia)[edit]

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

List of number ones on a non-notable chart. ARIA is notable - the ARIA Club Chart is not. Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I presume the nominator knows next to nothing about the ARIA Club Tracks Chart, so dismissing it as "not notable" is easy when one knows nothing about it and most likely has not read any Australian media that talks about it. Sure, the main chart doesn't have an article, but don't call charts "not notable" when you know you haven't even bothered to look around to see if it is. There are plenty of Australian sources that talk about artists having topped the ARIA Club Chart as a measure of success. I found these three from a simple Google search: The Music (a notable independent Australian music publication) covering the artist Zhu topping the chart, an archive of discussions on The Music Network about it here, one example of The Brag talking about the history of the ARIA Club Chart...I'm sure one could find more with different search terms. The fact remains that sources do cover this topic, which WP:LISTN says makes lists covering that topic notable. Ss112 21:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:Ss112, this was assuming bad faith. It's fine to have an opinion disagreeing with the nominator, especially if it is an area you know a lot on, but coming to a different conclusiono doesn't mean ;you know you haven't even bothered to look around.' Boleyn (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has sufficient external references to establish notability. Whiteguru (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I said when I undone the proposed deletion the chart Is considered a notable chart.

DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. has been nominated elsewhere Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of top 10 singles in 2018 (New Zealand)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG - random cut off point and not a notable topic in itself (top tens). See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top 10 singles in 2017 (Ireland) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top 10 singles in 2017 (New Zealand). Boleyn (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and relist as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top 10 singles in 2017 (New Zealand), which presents the exact same argument on a related list in the same group, and should not have been nominated separately. postdlf (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. I added to the nomination of the 2017 list and updated the link on the 2018 list article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of top 10 singles in 2017 (New Zealand)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG - random cut off point and not a notable topic in itself (top tens). See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top 10 singles in 2017 (Ireland) and [[Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG - random cut off point and not a notable topic in itself (top tens). ~~See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top 10 singles in 2018 (New Zealand).~~ Boleyn (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating List of top 10 singles in 2018 (New Zealand). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are nothing more than enthusiastic editors going through each week's chart from the primary source and updating the list, many of which exist only because others do (see List of Billboard Hot 100 top-ten singles in 2017 and List of UK top-ten singles in 2017). That's OK for updating the chart section for an article of a song to note its peak (which can be from 1 to whatever), but the topic of top tens in New Zealand is not one that receives independent coverage and fails WP:LISTN. It also provides an excessive amount of extraneous info and ultimately trivia. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. We generally don't really list top tens singles, just number ones. Ajf773 (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per above Spiderone 17:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of top 10 singles in 2018 (Ireland)[edit]

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

Not a notable topic, random cut-off point; doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top 10 singles in 2017 (Ireland) Boleyn (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: These should have been group noms, as you're presenting the same argument on both lists that are part of the same group of content (and why just 2017 and 2018?). Listing them separately forces commenters to repeat themselves in multiple places and risks inconsistent results on the same issues. postdlf (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and relist with preexisting AFD that presents exact same arguments on list in same group. postdlf (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per same rationale I presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top 10 singles in 2017 (Ireland): WP:IINFO and the arbitrariness of a top ten list when lists of number ones already exist. Things like when a song reached its peak position and how many weeks a song spent in the top ten amounts to chart trivia not covered anywhere. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gabriel Iglesias#Discography. (non-admin closure) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 05:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hot and Fluffy[edit]

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

Simply a biography of Fluffy along with the show's airdate and length. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing about "Hot and Fluffy" in the article and no substantial references found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gabriel_Iglesias#Discography per WP:CHEAP. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla principle[edit]

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

Piece of Tesla fancruft, not a real thing or an encyclopedic thing. Tesla sold the idea to a gullible reporter in 1911 [6], the Electrical Experimenter spewed it out again in January 1919 [7], and it has never been heard of again. Lead in pipe "Archaism" seems correct, this is a dicdef, if even that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. Tesla is a cult figure with a huge echo chamber of fansites that make up pseudoscientific myths about him, and this article is just part of the hype. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a GB search and the first several references I found to the precise phrase were all referring to something different - it appears to have been used in the 1890s an early 1900s to describe any of a number of phenomena observed by Tesla, rather than being a specific thing. The current page seemingly accepts this lack of specificity, "Historically, the term Tesla principle was used to describe (amongst other things) . . ." before seemingly arbitrarily providing one specific usage, supporting this with a citation that fails verification, simply giving the term among a list of Tesla terms without further defining it. Something as generic as it would have to be - "Historically, the term Tesla principle described any of a number of phenomena observed by N T" is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and hardly that - it is practically a grammatical tautology. Unless someone can bring a more specific definition/description, this doesn't pass muster. Agricolae (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Agricolae. There isn't enough to this to warrant a standalone article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic Rock Volume 2: 80's into 90's[edit]

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

Compilation lacking independent and significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:NALBUMS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails:WP:NALBUM. There's a rating but no text on AllMusic but nothing else, which isn't enough to pass notability if there isn't any prose that can be sourced. Seems to be an unremarkable compilation album. Richard3120 (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the compilation album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cordon D'Or[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. I can't find evidence that this was awarded for more than a few years, and seems specific to Florida, covered only by recipients themselves and trade publications. Beware false positives (other things have the same name). This seems to be connected to "Gold Ribbon Inc." and at least one Florida culinary trade association. Appears to have been created by one of the award recipients? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The official website no longer exists. This most recent archived version does not inspire confidence (not that website aesthetics/maintenance directly connects to any of our policies/guidelines, of course). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one newspaper article covering the award is not enough to show notability. Although it is better than the huge number of cases of award articles we have only sourced to the website for the award organization. Wikipedia has clearly allowed too many under sourced articles and too many articles linked only to the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cada mañana[edit]

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

violates WP:NOR RayScript (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. (new vote on the bottom) Pahiy (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appear to be two decent references in eswiki. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
` The articles in eswiki and enwiki are on different topics, AleatoryPonderings. Both are, logically, morning television programs:

es:Cada mañana aired on La 1 in Spain in the 1991-92 television season. There are references there for it.
This article is for a program that aired on Azteca 13 from 2000 to January 2006.

The presenters, duration of program, and airing on a national broadcast network indicate that this will clear WP:NTV. (Its successor is still on the air and we lack an article for it.) Mexican TV networks generally have this type of morning magazine program. This is a keep with an overhaul needed. The sourcing will come from Mexican publications. Raymie (t • c) 23:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I've added additional info and citations, mostly about the constant changes in presenters. Unfortunately the early 2000s can be a bit tough to get good citations for. Raymie (t • c) 23:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recent additions make this look way more legit. --Lockley (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTV and Raymie's improvements. This was a nationally broadcast show, which NTV says generally get kept. Raymie has added sources from a reliable source, El Universal. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The improvements that Raymie made to the article are good enough to keep this article around. Pahiy (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and a hearty self-WP:TROUT for mistaking one Cada mañaña for another above. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Tennessee at Chattanooga#Administration. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of leaders of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga[edit]

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

Not a notable topic. Worth perhaps listing on UTC's website, but not here. Has sat in CAT:NN for 6 years. Considered merge/redirect to UTC, and that is an option, but I don't think it's worth including in that article. Boleyn (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to University_of_Tennessee_at_Chattanooga#Administration. Not notable in its own right, but IMO fits nicely there, partly because it makes the university's name changes more explicit. --Lockley (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge. I count three bluelinks here, and as this has existed since 2005 in roughly the same form I'm not seeing the prospect for the redlinks to turn blue. But at least the bluelinks would fit nicely at University_of_Tennessee_at_Chattanooga#Administration, as Lockley notes. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Little evidence of independent notability has been provided here. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Although as a general rule I would be cautious about making a second nomination of an article which survived an earlier deletion discussion, consensus seems to be changing in favour of deleting these articles on deposed royal families. Simply being the supposed heir apparent to the head of a rather minor former royal family which was deposed back in 1918 is a very weak claim to notability, also raised issues about WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BLP. PatGallacher (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , being "heir" to a non existent position doesn't make someone notable. The rest of the article is utterly trivial (was born, went to school, got a job, got married, had kids, that's it.)Smeat75 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not even clear that the heir to every princeling in Germany would have been default notable back when the princelings held power, being heir to a princeling positions abolished several decades before your birth is not even remotely close to a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of independent notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This family is historically notable and many people will find current descendants interesting, which is part of the reason for Wikipedia. Thorwald (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails WP:GNG, and the article in its current state fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY. VocalIndia (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe that we should err on the side of caution in this debate. I see nothing offensive or wrong in the article as it stands. Also it is a stub that needs to be improved, and material could/should be gathered from other sources, especially foreign language material. This entry appears closely related to an entry on French wikipedia. Deleting the article now, and especially because there has been a previous attempt to delete which it survived does not give a chance to improve the article. Some important policies can be brought to bear here. esp wikipedia:Overzealous deletion#Lack of familiarity with the subject WP:LACK Obscurity does not mean lack of notability. WP:OBTOP The geographic scope is wide. The house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is historically and currently linked to the histories and governance of many European countries across two or more centuries including Germany, Britain, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Austria, Russia, Romania. Most of the countries in the First World War were led by members of this family. The very subject of the article has featured in non fiction films and documentaries as an interviewee on European and British history.

Removing this stub type article does not speak of a global perspective rather a North American concept of royal dynasties as irrelevant and superannuated , (even though many diverse cultures globally still regard royal dynasties as important and relevant) . Notability is not temporary = whilst the subject as discussed here may appear unnotable to the anglozone, he is linked geographically and historically into a larger and more historically notable network, and represents a present day manifestation of this phenomenon WP:NOTTEMPORARY

Also recall these arguments on Wikipedia "Conversely, some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English-speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable." WP:UNKNOWNHERE Experts in European history are better able to make a call on this article. I would also endorse the arguments to keep made by Thorwald above. Bebe Jumeau (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do know a bit of French and Spanish, I have had a look at the articles in these Wikipedias, they don't say much more than this article. I note that he does not even have an article in German. PatGallacher (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to IParty with Victorious. Given that there has been no participation in the AfD besides one vote for redirect. (non-admin closure) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 05:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leave It All to Shine[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, while iCarly and Victorious may have been popular shows on Nickelodeon from the early 2010s, I don’t think that a song that was sung in a crossover special is enough for pass WP:GNG. The history of the article shows it was originally a redirect to the iParty With Victorious article until September 2016 when an IP address created the article and perhaps a redirect could be the best option for this article if it were to avoid deletion. Pahiy (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to iParty with Victorious: Barely found anything about the song aside from a PopCrush article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural Close. The page has been a redirect since 2008, and should be discussed at WP:RFD if anywhere. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New End Primary School[edit]

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

It is not notable, so it should not have been created in the first place. Only one other state-funded primary school in Hampstead out of eight has an article.
This page is a redirect, and the only article that links to it is a list ( List of schools in Hampstead ), which links to the Hampstead article in other places, so this link can be made a redlink or just plain text
The Hampstead article (which this page redirects to) contains no information on New End Primary School

Person853 (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afrie[edit]

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

A non notable musician having no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. She once won an award for her song but the award itself does not seem notable. Google search does not show much. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a musician who does not meet any of the notability prongs for musiciains.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. She has a few concert reviews, already cited in the article, but those are not particularly in-depth, and all of them might be reprints of press releases because three different shows are hyped as her "debut" performance. The article does not mention that she has a 2019 album called Afriedom, for which I can find no reviews. You can tell that other sources like Music In Africa are fed by her management when they use adjectives like "award winning" but don't say what the awards are. Good luck to her but she does not yet have the significant coverage necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of Internet[edit]

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

WP:NOPAGE. We don't need an entire article covering this. Popcornfud (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– Related discussion: Talk:Internet § Capitalization of the word Internet. ItsPugle (please use ((reply|ItsPugle))) 11:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge to Internet#Terminology. Some useful info, but we don't need a whole page. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As can be seen by the length of the reference list, this is a frequent subject of debate. Pages are not a scarce resource. Alvestrand (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of citations in the article are user-generated content (i.e. not reliable sources) and come from 2009–15, not to mention that most of the sources are just regurgitations of style manual changelogs. Pages aren't a scarce resource, absolutely, but that doesn't mean that we should have a page about every single linguistic disagreement. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very selective merge into Internet#Terminology per AleatoryPonderings - even though there are plenty of sources that give their own opinions about the matter, that doesn't mean that there's any real world significance. Otherwise we'd be having articles about the capitalisation of every word under the Sun (or should that be sun?). It's also worth noting that most of the sources on the article are self-published/user-generated content/opinion pieces, or regurgitations of style guide changelogs - not reliable or appropriate sources. And looking at the access date for many of the sources, the content may need updating - everything seems to be from either the late 1990s or from 2009–15. ItsPugle (please use ((reply|ItsPugle))) 06:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been, and continues to be, an ongoing topic of discussion, particularly within technical communities across the Internet. Because of that ongoing debate, I think a page specifically outlining the situation, is useful to have within Wikipedia. - Dyork (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dyork, do you not think we can just summarise the notable parts of that discussion on the internet page? I don't think there's that much to really cover, once you strip away all the non-reliable sources. Popcornfud (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Popcornfud:, I'm slowly starting to come closer to that position with the comments from yourself and other editors. Not sure I'm quite ready to change my vote, but getting there. - Dyork (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an interesting article about a notable topic with sufficient refs. I don't see any WP:V problems or large amounts that should obviously be cut, but if there are any, that should be handled through normal editing. The Internet article is already long, and this being tangential to that topic, merging might also cause WP:UNDUE issues there. Station1 (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are some missing citations and claims that would need more citations, not to mention that again, a significant wad of the references are primary sources, regurgitations of style manual changelogs which just happen to include the changes to capitalisation of the word internet, or style guides themselves. And suggesting to keep an excessive article about a purely superficial and niche subject that has no public importance because the article it would be merged into is too long is a bit flawed - if internet is too long, then we should reduce the amount of regurgitated content from sections that have excessive content already conveyed in other articles: ({slink|Internet|History|Governance|World Wide Web|Social impact)) (several would benefit from some cleanup) anyways. And internet isn't overly long anyways; have a look at COVID-19 pandemic in the United States for a blooming long article. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article averages 100 views per day. It's a legitimate topic, of interest to readers. Station1 (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but we can cover all of the notable sourced stuff in the internet page which gets 5000 views a day. The internet is a popular topic, we could probably take any given section of the article and move it to its own article and that article would get 100/whatever views a day too. It doesn't mean that's the best way to organise that information. Popcornfud (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's common to have subtopic articles when details are too long, too tangential or too esoteric to fit comfortably in the main article. Internet has subtopic articles such as Sociology of the Internet, Internet governance (<100 hits/day each), Internet security, Internet censorship, Languages used on the Internet (200-300 hits/day each) and History of the Internet (2250 hits/day). This article isn't really too different. If consensus is to merge it into the main article and leave this as a redirect, there's no real problem with that, but it's not an AfD issue. Although I still think length and WP:UNDUE issues tend to favor leaving it as a separate article. Station1 (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus appears to maybe merge instead of delete, but how could the OP have known that? And bringing up other articles is a bit of a flawed argument. And how exactly are we giving undue weight to non-prominent perspectives in an excessive subject by merging (not copy-pasting) content? There's already a need to update the content anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsPugle (talk • contribs) 06:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm not suggesting this was anything but a good faith nomination, but I see no consensus to merge. So far I see 3 keep !votes and 2 merge !votes; the only consensus so far is not to delete. I brought up the other articles in answer to the previous comment only to illustrate by example that sometimes subtopic articles are the best way to organize information. As to the undue weight question, there's already a few sentences in the Internet article about capitalization. Adding any substantial part of this current article there may tend to give more importance than warranted to what is a very minor issue in the context of that article, with details of interest to only a minority of readers. Station1 (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly subtopic articles are the best way to organise information in many cases. But your argument was that, since this subtopic article gets 100 views a day and is "of interest", it must be a good use of a subtopic. That doesn't logically follow. Any page linked from internet will get views, especially when it's linked right at the top of the article. Popcornfud (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible I was unclear. The views only show interest in the topic, a response to the assertion that it is "a purely superficial and niche subject that has no public importance"; an argument against deletion only. Whether the topic should be merged into the longer and broader article is a secondary issue; the arguments against that are length and undue weight. Station1 (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep convinced of standalone notability just by looking at the references section. Covering all this information in Internet would certainly cause WP:UNDUE issues. SD0001 (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the Internet#Terminology section on the main internet page to concisely summarise the history of the term, including capitalisation issues, based on reliable sources from the last few years. I have examined the content on the Capitalization of Internet article and, disregarding stuff that is poorly sourced or not sourced at all, frankly I'm not seeing much content that would be worth integrating into the subsection. I'm sure someone could do the digging to find enough material for another paragraph or so, but do we really need an entire page, to document several years of bickering between style guides and dictionaries about capitalising this term? Worth summarising in a subsection, sure - along with other considerations like the (increasingly archaic) difference between the global internet and smaller internets - but anything more that is just trivia. Popcornfud (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article gives the history of the name and capitalization of and invention. The article is notable, very-well referenced, and is balanced in tone. The nominator's reason for deletion is without merit, and his statement that the article is mere trivia is irrelevant. We rely on outside reliable sources not personal opinion. Senator2029 “Talk” 16:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Internet#Terminology where it makes good sense to cover this topic in context. The idea that a capitalization issue rates its own article seems peculiar, or perhaps ludicrous. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find this article hilarious, but the point here is to write an encyclopedia, not make jokes. Popcornfud already wrote everything that should be written about this subject in Internet#Terminology, we're not losing anything by deleting this article. Tercer (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

East Hill Church[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable church. There are hits ([8] (namedrop) [9] (WP:ROUTINE, I think)), but not enough for either WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Being a large church in a mid-size city does not confer notability, IMO. Tagged for notability for 11 years. Prodded in 2009. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - with over 4,000 weekly attendance, this church is considered to be a megachurch; therefore, probably meets GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Care to provide an RS that cites its attendance figures? I'm having trouble finding one myself. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no sources to substantiate 4,000 weekly attendance, much less coverage to meet WP:GNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable megachurch. No secondary sources or references. Whiteguru (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Falafel Cart. Sandstein 08:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RoyalTales[edit]

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

A non notable film studio that lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The article cites only two sources, one of which does not even mention the topic. The only notable thing about the studio is that it produced a short animated film Falafel Cart which was submitted for 92nd Academy Awards but no evidence if it was nominated. Notability, however, is not inherited and requires independence evidence. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Falafel Cart, their only released short, which may be notable. I'm still a bit iffy on that, to be honest. There are no reliable sources in English discussing this studio (even the two references currently in the article don't seem to even mention their name), so unless some non-English sources can be found during this AFD, the studio does not pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have managed to source an article and two references that mention the studio specifically. They were added to the page. Salom006 (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Falafel Cart. Wm335td (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonquest (film)[edit]

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

Non notable film, with no independent reviews found during a WP:BEFORE, only things found were film database sites and reviews for the Netflix animated film of the same name. Tagged for 10 years for notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brompton Road (disambiguation)[edit]

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

No title matches - only two PTMs. Other entries for "Brompton Road" are not mentioned in the linked articles. WP is not an road atlas. MB 14:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MB 14:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Limit to a few places in United Kingdom per nom. Aravindhan Ravikumar (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless any of these are mentioned in their respective articles (and a search seems to show that they are not). I've added a hatnote to Brompton Road to point to the two stations, which are useful dab entries. Note that there was no hatnote pointing from that base article to this dab page, which made it pretty pointless. The same editor appears to have created several similar road-name dab pages, which might be worth checking for usefulness. PamD 09:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disambiguation in this case can be handled with the hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Visions Entertainment[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. A local production company that produced two films. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources both in the article and on a google search so WP:CORPDEPTH is not passed. Also it seems the first film mentioned in the filmography was only distributed by them so they only have one full length film produced plus a half hour film, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy-delete (G7). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swea Vallyzk[edit]

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

Not an A7, since it's claim of a top 10 single in 8 countries is a claim to significance, although it appears to be false. Non-notable musician, the claims in the article don't appear to be true. Only finding coverage in user-generated or upload sites. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the creator - Hi please dont delete 'swea vallyzk' i like it and it is legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swea Vallyzk (talk • contribs) 14:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was created by the subject himself (COI) and has statements that are obviously fictional. WP:BEFORE hasn't shown any mentions in IRS. Fails WP:GNG.Less Unless (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find anything online to verify the claims made in the article. --John B123 (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. The article is also completely empty at the moment. It was created by the subject himself and his reason to keep the "article" ("i like it and it is legit.") is nonsense. Fails every aspect of notability. Update the link is red now. Fine. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patrudu[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable caste. I would have prodded this but there is a source cited (English translation: [10]), but it is almost certainly self-published. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No information found about the author's credentials. Likely that they have written a book glorifying their caste which may violate NPOV. In any case, a single source cannot establish notability. --Ab207 (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability and agree with reasoning above Spiderone 22:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Saxon thrones[edit]

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

These thrones (of the Kingdom of Saxony and the Duchies of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, Saxe-Meiningen, and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) have been defunct since 1918. WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current lines of succession to these thrones to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there are no current lines of succession, because the Kingdom and Duchies themselves don't even exist anymore. See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are also WP:BLP concerns about the people who are listed here, including three minors.

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 32 lines of succession to defunct thrones that have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32). TompaDompa (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Kingdom of Saxony was a small kingdom which ceased to be a sovereign state in 1871 and ceased to exist altogether in 1918. As this article recognises, there are various disputes about who the supposed king now is, based on issues like equal marriage. This is both trivial and a quagmire, without even getting into issues like lines of succession to the various claimants, which I don't believe we can decide without getting into original research. Anything legitimate should be incorporated in articles on notable pretenders, if there are any. PatGallacher (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no reason to catalog succession to thrones that do not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , ludicrous fantasy, OR.Smeat75 (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly insignificant but that could also be true of some notable topics e.g. Kardashian family. More importantly, although there are many sources, they are put together in a way that looks like a violation of WP:SYNTH. And I agree with the nominator re the dubious reliability of sources that treat this sort of fantasy as if it were real, and the lack of sources that take a more realistic view. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - alternative history. Lines of succession only exist under legal frameworks that exist, not ones that haven't existed for a century. Agricolae (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the quality of sources. There were several BLP violations, which I have just removed. This was the reflist for the version before my revision, with items I deleted in bold and items that are possibly unreliable underlined:

4 citations to Heraldica.org, an SPS (by a non-expert) that doesn't seem to have been updated since the early 2000s.
5 citations to Arturo Beéche, European Royal History Journal. This is a blogspot blog by two amateur royalty enthusiasts (one is a self-described "armchair historian").
2 citations to GHdA (1991). Royal genealogy book published by a German nobility association about the families of its membership.
4 citations to Le Petit Gotha. Royal genealogy book published by ... Le Petit Gotha? I cannot find information on any independent publishing house, and the authors were royalist activists with no scholarly contributions. Although this book has enjoyed RS privileges and is highly cited on WP, after having looked into it I am now unconvinced of its reliability given the lack of publishing oversight.
A Bild article. This newspaper is considered "generally unreliable".
Les Maisons Impériales et Royales d'Europe published by "Éditions du Palais-Royal", which I can't find info on. The author is Guy Coutant de Saisseval, one of the (non-expert) authors of Le Petit Gotha.
Another Bild article.
GHdA (2007) (p. 11).
The Descendants of Louis XIII (1999), published by Clearfield (now merged with Genealogical Publishing Co.).
Christian Cannuyer's Les maisons royales et souveraines d'Europe. This is RS, but it's unclear what statements it is supporting in the body (specific discussion of Alexander Prinz von Sachsen-Gessaphe's Maronite claim of descent vs. general background info on the historical Afif dynasty).
2 citations to L'Allemagne Dynastique Tome VI. The reflist says its publisher is "Laballery", which is just a print-on-demand printing house, not a publisher. French wiki seems to think it was published through one of its authors (Alain Girard).
David McIntosh, European Royal History Journal. See above.
Article in Sächsische Zeitung.
Article in Der Spiegel.
Personal website of "Prinz Albert von Sachsen" (used with attribution).
Duplicate citation to the first "ERHJ" article by Beéche.
A different article by Beéche in "ERHJ.
Interview with Albert Prinz von Sachsen published on a (blog) website maintained by Bertuch Verlag (a publishing house) where "cultural scientists and hobby historians regularly publish interesting articles about special places, people and events from Saxony's past and present." Articles are not peer-reviewed; the website's administrators only claim to proofread submissions. This is likely not RS but more feedback may be needed.
A third article in Bild.
Article in Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk.
Article in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
PDF of a 2015 agreement within the Wettin family, hosted by the website of the Association of German Nobility Associations.
18 citations to the resurrected version of the Almanach de Gotha (2013). Issues with accuracy have been noted.
Another page on Albert Prinz von Sachsen's personal website.
The House of Wettin website.
Duplicate FAZ citation.
Article in Morgenpost.
"Reading Notes" published on Heraldica.org.
GHdA (2007) (pp. 89–99).

As the bulk of the succession lines are based either on unreliable or wholly-primary sources, or on unsourced synthesis, I think the article should be deleted with any info on independently-covered dynastic disputes merged into the articles on relevant family members or the family as a whole. The various hypothetical lines of succession are not described in full and in relation to each other in any of the sources the way they are portrayed here, indicating extensive synthesis that should not be retained. JoelleJay (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Le Petit Gotha, see also the comments by me and Anonimu over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Bulgarian throne. Perhaps it is time to start a discussion at WP:RSN? TompaDompa (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this awesomely absurd alternate history original research. —Kusma (t·c) 12:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as there's no throne to be in line of succession for. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This article is combining titular claims to the Kingdom (once Electorate) of Saxony with those of several duchies, which were fragmented due to partible inheritance. For UK, we have an article on every peerage. I see no reason why we should not have articles on the successors to what are equally empty titles. I suspect that the holders are still using the title "duke". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several significant differences. UK peerage titles are still officially recognised. They do still have some limited power as they collectively elect a number of representatives in the House of Lords. The whole point of this article is to put forward various lines of succession, which is subject to doubt, dispute and original research. We do not have articles putting forward the line of succession to every UK peerage title. PatGallacher (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, long defunct throne, theoretical succession.--Hippeus (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Russian throne[edit]

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

This throne has been defunct since 1917. WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the monarchy doesn't exist anymore. See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are also WP:BLP concerns about the people who are listed here, including two minors.

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 32 lines of succession to defunct thrones that have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32). TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no reason to catalog succession to a throne that does not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep unlike the other lists in this series, which just presented an unverifiable line of succession, this one offers a load of prose (some of it sourced) about controversies over the succession and the history of the Russian royal family since 1917. Most of it doesn't seem to be covered anywhere else. It needs some major cleanup and possibly a merge or rename but I suspect it's possible to get some encyclopedic content out of it. Hut 8.5 17:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be appropriate with a very selective merge (which would not including the proposed line of succession) to Pretender#Russian pretenders. TompaDompa (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , speculation, fantasy, BLP violations. Smeat75 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This is not a 'thing', hasn't been for over a century. Even were Russia to reestablish a monarchy, there are no limitations on whom they might choose. Agricolae (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The Russian Orthodox Church recognized Maria Vladimirovna as the Head of the Russian Imperial House in 2013, and the book Flight of the Romanovs^[1] tells the story behind today's Romanov Family Association, so I would merge the Line of succession to the former Russian throne#Claimant support section very selectively, as proposed above, to Pretender#Russian pretenders. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as there's no throne to be in line of succession for. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Heads of the House of Romanov since 1917. This would deal with the issue that there is no throne to claim or likely to be. I note that the claimants use the title Grand Duke, rather than Tsar, but they do use a title. There is a lot of content in this article as to the rival claims, which depend on whether certain marriages were morganatic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Nepalese throne[edit]

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

This throne has been defunct since 2008. WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the monarchy doesn't exist anymore. See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are also WP:BLP concerns about the people who are listed here, including at least two minors.

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 32 lines of succession to defunct thrones that have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32). TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no reason to catalog the succession to a throne that does not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to King of Nepal. Most of the content is details of the succession while the monarchy still existed, which would make a suitable addition to that article. The current claimed line of succession must be the same as the line of succession when the monarchy was abolished (because everyone was born before that date), that would also be a reasonable thing to add. Hut 8.5 17:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nepal decided they were no longer going to be a monarchy and it is not our place to tell them they are wrong. Agricolae (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The first reason for deletion is like proposing to delete article on Dinosaur becuse they do not exist anymore. The article has already been converted to the past tense, so I think it is not an irrelevant information. The title of the article however is misguiding- it should read something like Line of succession of the last Nepalese throne. Regarding the source, they can be improved.nirmal (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No this is like proposing a deletion on an article about how things would have happened if the earth had not had an austroid impact that disrupted dinosaurs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as there's no throne to be in line of succession for. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge -- There is nothing in the article King of Nepal on the family of the last king. I note that this article refers to a royalist party, so that restoration may not be completely impossible. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Montenegrin throne[edit]

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

This throne has been defunct since 1918. WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the monarchy doesn't exist anymore. See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are also WP:BLP concerns about the people who are listed here.

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 32 lines of succession to defunct thrones that have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32).

A unique thing about this line of succession is that there is a legally recognised line of succession today with the former royal house having an official role in Montenegro. However, that line of succession is to the headship of the house, not to the throne (because the throne does not exist anymore). That information properly belongs at Petrović-Njegoš dynasty, and is in fact already presented there. TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Petrović-Njegoš_dynasty#Line_of_Succession_post-monarchy_(1918–Present) which presents the same information. No reason given for deletion. Hut 8.5 16:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time for us to stop giving undue voice to royalist restorationist pretenderism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Montenegro or to another article like: Petrović-Njegoš_dynasty#Line_of_Succession_post-monarchy_(1918–Present) which Hut 8.5 presented Wm335td (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no monarchy to succeed to, and the headship of the family is sufficiently covered already on the appropriate page so no productive merge. Agricolae (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Petrović-Njegoš_dynasty#Line_of_Succession_post-monarchy_(1918–Present) Altanner1991 (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as there's no throne to be in of succession for. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to Petrović-Njegoš_dynasty#Line_of_Succession_post-monarchy_(1918–Present). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Italian throne[edit]

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

This throne has been defunct since 1946. WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the monarchy doesn't exist anymore. See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are also WP:BLP concerns about the people who are listed here, including four minors.

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 32 lines of succession to defunct thrones that have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32). TompaDompa (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The throne is defunt. 32 discussions show that there is no reason to have these articles presenting an unreal thing as if it is real.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article doesn't try to claim that someone is the heir to the former Italian throne, instead it presents the claims of the two pretenders. The succession has evidently been the source of real-world media controversy including lawsuits and assaults, which suggests to me that it's an encyclopedic topic. Possibly we could rename or restructure it to make it about the history of the Italian royal family since 1946. Hut 8.5 17:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The dispute over the headship of the House of Savoy properly belongs at House of Savoy, and is already described there. TompaDompa (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I'd be happy with the relevant content being merged there. Hut 8.5 06:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , the entire premise of such articles is original research and inaccurate fantasy. Thrones that don't exist don't have lines of succession to them.Smeat75 (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Smeat75. The rules for monarchical succession ceased to operate when the monarchy did. Agricolae (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as there's no throne to be in line of succession for. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after using the content to fill out House_of_Savoy#House_of_Savoy_today and King of Italy#Kings in pretense (since 1946), both these allude to the rival claims to be head of the House of Savoy. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the content is merged somewhere else then it can't be deleted afterwards for attribution reasons. Hut 8.5 17:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, long defunct throne to which succession is theoretical.--Hippeus (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Greek throne[edit]

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

This throne has been defunct since 1973. WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the monarchy doesn't exist anymore. See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are also WP:BLP concerns about the people who are listed here, including two minors.

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 32 lines of succession to defunct thrones that have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32). TompaDompa (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: if the United Kingdom ceased to exist tomorrow (or changed its government), I don't think it would be controversial that Succession to the British throne would still be a notable topic (WP:NOTTEMP), even if it had to be renamed. I see several "former" throne succession articles at AfD -- would none of them have been notable topics when the throne was current? Probably, it seems. So how to handle the article, because it shouldn't be deleted. I do agree that it seems strange to keep playing a fantasy succession game with people born after 1973 being listed. Perhaps it would be best to maintain an article about the line of succession as it existed in 1973? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current line of succession is defined by the current legal framework of the nation in question. Were that to change (such as when the UK changed from male-preference primogeniture to strict primogeniture) then the succession order changes, and the order the day before the change is superseded, just as is the case when there is a royal birth or death. As such, lines of succession are more 'dynamic lists' than noteworthy topics representing historical events that are NOTTEMP. Pre-change status becomes obsolete and no longer noteworthy, or else we would need to produce a separate line of succession for every time point in history where there was a change in law, a birth, death, abdication, etc. The list representing the current line of succession after abolition of the monarchy would be: nobody - a null list and we don't do that. A list of what the succession now would be had the change not occurred is alternative history - the change did occur. Agricolae (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article Succession to the British throne discusses the rules for succession, their development over time and controversies they have caused. This would still be encyclopedic information even if the UK abolished the monarchy tomorrow, so the article would continue to exist. This one isn't as well developed but there is still some content about the succession rules which isn't covered anywhere else. We are supposed to consider alternatives for preserving that content instead of deleting it. Hut 8.5 06:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The changes in rules are encyclopedic. The precise order of succession at any given time (beyond the immediate heir) is not. These pages are worse, though. They present an order of succession that was never operative under any contemporary legal framework. Sure, bits here and there might be shifted to other articles, but there is not necessarily a single target nor is the core aspect of the article, the supposed 'current' line of succession, appropriate anywhere. Agricolae (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The throne has been abolished a long time, the notion succession to a non-existent thing is notable is just plain wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monarchy of Greece. The "Law of succession" part is about the law of succession when the monarchy still existed, that would be a suitable addition to that article. Some of the remaining content could probably be merged too. Hut 8.5 17:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Smeat75 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the 1974 constitution of Greece establishes it as a presidential parliamentary democracy, and subsequent amendments have not changed this constitutional definition. There is no current legal framework under which a line of succession can be authentically deduced (which act would be WP:OR anyhow), and any hypothetical restoration would not be bound by historical rules or current whims within the former ruling family over who is and is not eligible. Agricolae (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge. The encyclopedic part of this topic (the line of descent during the time when it was meaningful) is better covered by List of heirs to the Greek throne, and a redirect would not make sense because the title of the nominated article makes clear that it is only about the post-monarchal fantasy. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as there's no throne to be in line of succession for. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monarchy of Greece. Any useful content can be become a postscript to that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of Bhopal[edit]

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

This throne has been defunct since 1949. WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the princely state itself doesn't even exist anymore. See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are also WP:BLP concerns about the people who are listed here, including at least ten minors.

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 32 lines of succession to defunct thrones that have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32). TompaDompa (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no reason to give this a seperate article. Anything worth saying can be included within the article on the Nawabs of Bhopal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Smeat75 (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the monarchy has been abolished, meaning the line of succession is currently: nobody. Agricolae (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's no throne to be in line of succession for. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is too much WP:OR. Either way not needed since Nawabs of Bhopal exists. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nawabs of Bhopal: there is a lot of content in this article which is not in that one. Despite the amalgamation of the state into India in c.1948, the Nawabs were entitled to a Privy Purse from the Indian government until Indira Gandhi's government abolished such. I suspect someone is still the titular nawab. We cannot have an article with the title of the present one, because as others have said there is no prospect of succession. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, long defunct throne to which succession is theoretical.--Hippeus (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of value worth keeping Spiderone 08:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Romagna[edit]

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

This article falls very short of WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO. Proper sourcing to strengthen the article isn't readily available. Capt. Milokan (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not come even close to meeting inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of top 10 singles in 2017 (Ireland)[edit]

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

Does this meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG? Number ones would, but list of top ten singles in year x, I don't think should be included. Has been in CAT:NN for over 3 years. Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The info presented is WP:IINFO and there's an arbitrariness to a top ten list (why not top 5? top 20?). This is where lists like these fail WP:LISTN, and things like when a song reached its peak position and how many weeks a song spent in the top ten amounts to chart trivia not covered anywhere. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top 10 singles in 2018 (Ireland) Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom; no reason why top 10 singles needs an article Spiderone 17:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unión de Todos[edit]

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

fringe political group, one-person party void of any significant coverage. RZuo (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Mukoro Idisi. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Risa Ishibashi[edit]

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

The one source here is not even truly secondary. Wikipedia must be based on secondary sources. A search for more sources turned up nothing substantial, not even one source that would add towards meeting GNG John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No effective referencing. scope_creep^Talk 10:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Binary-to-text encoding with the option of merging any content that is deemed worthwhile. While there are a fair number of editors arguing to keep here, clear evidence of the topic meeting GNG is conspicuous by its absence, and while other indicators of significance can sometimes count towards notability per WP:IAR, I do not see consensus for such an option here. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Base58[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

this small algorithm was adopted in a few places because of its use in Bitcoin, but it isn't notable, and no reliable sources exist, since the bar is higher for crypto articles. The current sources are primary, which is forbidden. The encoding is defined by a custom alphabet, which is arbitrarily chosen and never documented, and there is also a checksum, but I don't see why the addition of a checksum would make an encoding any more notable. See also the arguments of the previous AfD from last month, where consensus was established to delete this article. Ysangkok (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Binary-to-text encoding, which has a list of similar encoding schemes. This seems reasonable enough to include there (and it already is), even though there doesn't seem to be enough out there about this to merit a stanndalone article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Wait, now I'm confused. The article history shows creation and edits going back years despite the close of "delete" last month as the nominator noted. I don't see a move in the page history since then. Did something just go wrong with the close, Seraphimblade? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deacon Vorbis, prior to pinging me asking me if I screwed up, you might check the readily available logs. [11] The article was deleted following that AfD. It was then later recreated, then deleted as G4, but a DRV overturned the G4 deletion since the newer version did not meet the criteria, not being substantially identical to the version deleted at AfD. So, now the newer version is being discussed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous discussion RoySmit stated: "I've tempundeleted this so people can see for themselves. None of the text is the same. None of the references are the same.". I think that the history should start here at August 12 2020 at the 'creation' of the article if the article remains. --FlippyFlink (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Jeez, chill out. I wasn't trying to imply you screwed up. We don't all regularly deal with situations where a page gets deleted 2 months ago, recreated, speedied, undeleted, and now has a history going back years, all after a DRV that wasn't posted on the talk page. I'm sorry if I missed something in the logs, but c'mon, I was just trying to figure out what happened here and asked for help. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated in the previous discussion - quote: "Such decisions are never final, P,TO 19104. New information and/or new sources, not previously considered, can cause the consensus to change." Also primary sources are not forbidden, aside from the fact that they are not all primary. The five pillars even state "Wikipedia has no firm rules". There are already 8 other languages which do find base58 notable. The alphabet is not arbitrarily chosen. It is based on the base64 but omitting some characters for plausible reasons. --FlippyFlink (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of an article on this topic on other language Wikipedias has no direct bearing (see WP:OTHERLANGS for more info). You're correct that primary sources aren't automatically forbidden, but their use requires care, and they offer no weight in determining notability of a topic (see WP:PRIMARY for more). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GNG should not be an issue. Both the IETF draft and the W3C documents include discussion of relevant literature, so should count as secondary sources, and there is extensive discussion of base58 in the academic literature on decentralised identifiers; cf. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=base58+encoding — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalst: what is the relevant literature you conjecture existing? The W3C document is also a draft, note how it says it isn't even sure if Base58 should be included. Anybody can submit a IETF draft, so it does nothing for notability since the IETF has not established consensus that this is something they want to standardize. I would even interpret the stalling of the standardization process as a sign that the IETF is not interested. --Ysangkok (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selective merge to Binary-to-text_encoding#Encoding_standards, where the encoding already has an entry. A simple WP:BEFORE style search shows plenty of secondary sources summarizing Base58 as an essential part of the Bitcoin design. This O'Reilly book has a nice section on it. O'Reilly is a reliable publisher with a reputation for fact checking and the author is independent of Satoshi, so the source is independent. Hence the assertion that there are no RS for this topic is wrong. Unfortunately, while there are plenty of short descriptions among sources found, I have not found any in-depth discussions. We still have verifiable content suitable for alternatives to deletion, however, and per our policy WP:ATD finding such alternatives is preferred over deletion. If we had a page devoted to Bitcoin implementation, that would be a perfect target. But the encoding article mentioned by Deacon Vorbis is also a good target with good context for this class of algorithms. I recommend merging some sources (like the O'Reilly book) for verification of the Base58 entry. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 22:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes our notability guide and is a relevant binary-to-text encoding. Here is a non-trivial article about Base58 in Medium 1, and another in Hackernoon 2 The oreilly source is also non-trivial. Additionally FlippyFlink has presented an interesting rationale for keeping. Lightburst (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Medium source is a blog post written by someone with a vested interest in promoting Bitcoin. This is neither reliable nor independent, and thus offers zero weight in establishing notability. The same is true of the Hackernoon source, a post submitted by a "contributor" (see WP:FORBESCON for an example of a different publication but similar issue), a self-avowed "bitcoinist", again calling independence into question. This too offers zero evidence of notability. Moreover, Flippyflink's keep rationale was completely invalid, as I pointed out. Moremoreover, as Mark Viking pointed out above, if we had an article that went into more detail of Bitcoin implementation, this would belong as a short section there, but not as a separate article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this is barely notable on it's own, but also a neater explanation of binary-to-text encoding (I like it) than the actual article. I think the topic is better served by one article containing Base36/Base58/Base62 and doing away with the individual articles. --Spacepine (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spacepine: Merging Base32 and Base58 I could see, as their use case is similar, but Base36 and Base62 lack the property of easy human distinguishability, so they are a somewhat different kind of encoding. I'd like to see more flesh on this proposal. What would the article be called? How would the lead justify exactly these three encodings and not others being the subject of the article? — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is to merge all three into Binary-to-text_encoding#Encoding_standards. As encoding standards they're all very similar, with 36/62 using alphanumeric only characters, and 32/58 removing characters for distinguishable, and 64 adding characters to reach a power of 2 number.

I singled out 36/62 for merging because they can be summed up in a couple of lines.

As for 58, I'm actually quite on the fence here, but if it tips to delete it should be merged into Binary-to-text encoding, same as the others. --Spacepine (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge An excellent suggestion @Spacepine:. I believe the subject is notable, so I agree with your suggestion. WP:ATD-M to Base36/Base58/Base62 Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has improved a lot since the 1st AfD nom and I think clears GNG. Base58 standardisation is being actively discussed by the Digital Identifiers WG of the IETF, since it is being used by an increasing number of projects, so I'd rather wait a few months before doing a merge we might want to reverse. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (see also WP:ATA#CRYSTAL). Simply being used in a few places doesn't make this sufficiently different from any other Base## scheme to warrant a separate article. There's no reason why that can't be mentioned in a table entry at Binary-to-text_encoding#Encoding_standards. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Policy does not dictate whether we should keep or merge. I express my preference for ~~merge~~keep, based on the criterion of avoiding waste of editorial effort. WP:CRYSTAL concerns verifiability of content, which is not relevant to the point I am making. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Base58 originates in cryptospace, but it has found adoption outside. Cf. the discussion of Flickr and IPFS in the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (first choice) or Merge to Binary-to-text encoding (second choice): See [12]. Base58 is the default encoding for the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) used by Cloudflare[13] and many others.[14] (More on what IPFS does here:[15][16][17][18][19]). --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: why does the existence of a draft IETF standard (which expired in May) imply that this is notable? A web browser implements hundreds of IETF documents, we don't have articles for every single standard. Why not stick to guidelines with established consensus instead of making up inclusion criteria? --Ysangkok (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it was just the IETF draft I would agree. But bitcoin is notable, IPFS is more notable, and Cloudflare is a major player -- and all use Base58. It isn't a slam dunk, but in my opinion it meets GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Charles and Guy have made good arguments for keeping this article and in the interests of establishing a consensus, I think keeping the article is a reasonable outcome as well. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 19:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. I check the resources (Also tried to find usage|citations through the literature), Nothing good enough to establish notability. Charmk (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Base58 encoded sha256 multihash" --How IPFS Works

This is a passing mention, just a presentation by a PhD student. Charmk (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"IPFS objects are normally referred to by their Base58 encoded hash." --An Introduction to IPFS

This is just a blog post! see WP:RS Charmk (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"There are two key differences between IPFS and the web as we think of it today. The first is that with IPFS anyone can cache and serve any content—for free. Right now, with the traditional web, most typically rely on big hosting providers in remote locations to store content and serve it to the rest of the web. If you want to set up a website, you have to pay one of these major services to do this for you. With IPFS, anyone can sign up their computer to be a node in the system and start serving data. It doesn’t matter if you’re working on a Raspberry Pi or running the world’s biggest server. You can still be a productive node in the system... With IPFS, every single block of data stored in the system is addressed by a cryptographic hash of its contents. With IPFS, you tell the network what to look for, and the network figures out where to look. By default, IPFS uses the SHA-256 algorithm, which produces a 32-byte hash. This is represented by the string “Qm” in Base58 (the default encoding for IPFS addresses), which is why all the example IPFS addresses in this post are of the form “Qm…”." -Cloudflare goes InterPlanetary - Introducing Cloudflare’s IPFS Gateway

This information could be merged with an existing article like InterPlanetary File System. This is not enough to start a new article about Base58. Charmk (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"This document specifies the base 58 encoding scheme, including an introduction to the benefits of the approach, the encoding and decoding algorithm, alternative alphabets, and security considerations. " -The Base58 Encoding Scheme

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To write a Wikipedia article about a topic, this topic must be notable and pass WP:GNG. So we can write a good article about the topic using facts from secondary resources. We can use primary resources, but we must have secondary resources that discuss the topic in details. for this article (Base58) these resources doesn't exist!. if you believe that the article topic is potential, then think about writing a draft and improving it a long the time. Charmk (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IPFS, Cloudflare, and Bitcoin are all secondary sources. You might as well declare Apple, Microsoft and IBM as primary sources for Binary code. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Binary-to-text_encoding, along with Base36/Base62. These are all just ways to take a binary stream and encode it into printable ascii, using trivial variations on packing the bits from N input bytes into M output bytes. The choice of output alphabet is driven by which characters you want to avoid, because they're non-printable, have special meanings (i.e. punctuation) in various contexts, and/or are easily confused by humans (i.e. O/0, l/1, etc). The differences can be covered in a table giving N and M, the packing efficiency, the alphabet, and listing some common applications which use them. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Jazz Albums number ones of the 1990s[edit]

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

List of number ones on a non-notable chart - doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 17:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep should be covered in jazz music reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
Vmavanti (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has some problems with accuracy. First of all, although it purports to be a list of number 1 albums from the 1990s, it doesn't begin until November 13, 1993. Billboard had a jazz albums chart long before then. Second, the article indicates that Kenny G's Breathless returned to No. 1 on Dec. 4, 1993, replacing Frank Sinatra's Duets. As seen at [20] (page 38), Breathless was at No. 1 on the Top Contemporary Jazz Albums chart, not the Top Jazz Albums chart which appeared on the same page. Furthermore, the chart indicates that Breathless had been No. 1 the previous week, and Duets doesn't even appear in the Top 25, much less is it suggested that it had been No. 1 the previous week. (During this period, Billboard compiled this chart weekly but only printed it in the magazine every other week.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doubtful jazz publications reference chart positions as there are few that get into what amounts to pop culture trivia. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Estia Health. Sandstein 08:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Arvanitis[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 11:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The articles linked as citations make more than passing mentions. In particular, the Sydney morning herald article for citation #2, and citation #1; have Peter Arvanatis as the primary focus of the article Jack4576 (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't therefore think that this article fails the WP:BIO criteria. Please take a look at the articles cited throughout the article to see that Peter is mentioned more than merely in passing. Jack4576 (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - In cite #1/#2 Peter's lifestyle is mentioned in contrast to the conditions of the nursing homes, not because he stands as an independent subject. A quick google search finds a few articles about his home [21][22] (all based on the same original vogue photoshoot) and a couple of 2019 business articles [23][24] but they're still primarily about companies/sales not the person.... I don't think it's enough --Spacepine (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

part of the story within those articles, is Avanitis' lifestyle as the former owner & controlling shareholder of those companies. Peter doesn't actually own those companies, or run them anymore; but articles are being written because of his newsworthy lifestyle juxtaposed with nursing home neglect Jack4576 (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see it as newsworthy neglect juxtaposed with questionably noteworthy lifestyle gossip. --Spacepine (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Estia Health as an alternative to deletion. The sources are mainly about the company he founded, not him. Deus et lex (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Estia Health WP:ATD per WP:CHEAP Wm335td (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vibrant Academy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Pathetic sources. Shockingly survived two nominations. Can find only passing mentions. No reliable, independent and in-depth coverage exists. COI editors have been involved in the past. Fails Wiki's notability guidelines. Article is being used to burnish the image of this "coaching factory", as an advertisement. MaysinFourty (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not a regular full curriculum school so it does not even fall under our now much questioned default acceptance of secondary schools, specialized schools like this need extensive sourcing, more than we have on the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 10:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fincash.com[edit]

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

I'm not confident about this. Can only find mention in bog-standard startup funding stories. Community, and experienced editors in this space, need to decide whether this should stay on Wikipedia. From where I'm standing, it looks like it fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organisations. MaysinFourty (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 22:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BVC Ventures[edit]

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

No independent, reliable and significant coverage exists for this company. Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. MaysinFourty (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 22:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allianz De Architecture[edit]

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

Speedy delete. Rubbish sources. No reliable, significant coverage exists. Clearly not notable. Fails all guidelines. MaysinFourty (talk) 10:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing here is not enough to show notability. Having spent the last week or so going through subcats of Category:1999 establishments I have realized this is true of lots of articles. It is shocking how many articles in that category are only sourced to the website of the article subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 18:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a quick before search shows that it has no independent or significant coverage at all. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parrots International[edit]

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

Great name for a non-notable parrot conservation association. Best I can do by way of WP:SIGCOV is [25], which is not very good. By my reckoning the sources in the article are either deadlinks, the org's own website, or non-RS. Tagged for notability since 2010. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

10:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete the depth and number of coverage I'm able to find fails WP:NORG and lack of mentions by respectable conservation effort doesn't give me an impression that there are sources out there. Graywalls (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

InterContinental Boston[edit]

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

This hotel is not any more notable than any other hotel and fails WP:NBUILD. The article is mostly advertising language. Wikiwriter700 (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

10:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a run-of-the-mill hotel. No reason to redirect to Elkus Manfredi Architects, IMO, because I'm not convinced that's notable either. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator without any !votes from others. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haneefah Adam[edit]

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

~~BLP for a lifestyle blogger who gained attention for posting images of Barbie dolls with hijabs on Instagram. 1292simon (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator 1292simon (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XOYO[edit]

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

Can't find anything that suggests any notability, there are a couple of media articles, however a good PR firm can easily facilitate this. The article was created by a SPA. Devokewater@ 09:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Devokewater@ 09:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Devokewater@ 09:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Devokewater@ 09:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. ~~It has a good amount of coverage at Resident Advisor, which I'd describe as the paper of record for electronic music. (From what I can see, all these articles are written by staff and have bylines.)~~ The claim about being voted one of the top 100 clubs by DJ Mag checks out. It was profiled by the Evening Standard and then further described. (No consensus on the reliability of the Standard, but this is basic factual reporting about a local club in London—don't think there's a whole lot of reliability to question there.) But a fair amount of this coverage, while it exists, could be seen as WP:ROUTINE—hence why my keep is still weak. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A small night club that doesn't have any news coverage from reliable sources does not meet GNG. The Resident Advisor articles are nothing more than announcement posts that read like press releases. One of the the promotional Resident Advisor articles even has a link to purchase tickets. The Chinese carry out across the street from my apartment has more news coverage than this small club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonstephen0 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the above weak keep vote Spiderone 23:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a hub of activity at the club Wm335td (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cthulhu Mythos species#Byakhee. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Byakhee[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The recently added reference is not sufficient, as the topic is only mentioned in passing and in the form of a WP:PLOT summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidate this and every other article in Category:Cthulhu Mythos species into a single article called Cthulhu Mythos species.—S Marshall T/C 09:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is documented in numerous secondary works such as The Cthulhu Mythos Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Cthulhiana. The nomination's claims are therefore false. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to provide page numbers, links and ideally quotations, so your claims can be verified? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - False or nominator is mistaken in Andrew's opinion. Andy! Come on mate :) - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cthulhu Mythos species There is no proof that the Byakhees have been seriously studied. Furthermore, I doubt that most of the species in Category:Cthulhu Mythos species are notable. Most of them should be merged into that hypothetical list. The Deep Ones, the Elder Things and the Shoggoths are the only ones who may deserve their own articles. Ghoul is actually about the mythological creature, so I removed it from the category. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Susmuffin: Just a note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serpent Men was closed as keep few months ago. So that would make presumably four that should stay. On the other hand, the current content of Deep One seems like 100% fancruft and 0% scholarly analysis... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Festival for now, pending the creation of the proposed Cthulhu Mythos species article. Information on the creature in non-fictional sources is pretty scant, and largely relegated to plot information that is not sufficient to support an independent article. I support the idea of the proposed main article on the minor mythos creatures, but until that is done, this article can be Redirected to the article on The Festival, the story they were first featured in. If the proposed article is actually developed during the span of this AFD, then my recommendation can be counted instead as a Merge to it. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and second choice Merge into Cthulhu Mythos species - another mystical character with no coverage... I second the nominator's assessment. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Festival, which is the appropriate level of coverage. --Lockley (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources only cover this in a WP:PLOT summary way, with no significant coverage in reliable third party sources to pass the WP:GNG. Would accept a merge if there is a consensus around target. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, for the time being to Cthulhu Mythos species. As has been stated, byakhee do appear in secondary sources, so this should not be deleted. In addition to the source in the article, and those mentioned by Andrew, there's the Enciclopedia de los Mitos de Cthulhu and The Art of Playing Mythos the Cthulhu Collectable Card Game. Byakhee have also appeared in a great many novels as well as games inspired by Lovecraft, as the last secondary source is testament of. I am not sure how this is ranked with regard to notability. (If something like a list of appearances of byahkee in popular culture would be attempted, that would probably be needed to WP:SPLIT off again from the proposed target due to its scope.) Aside from a minor point in the VERBATIM magazine, I cannot say if there is analysis beyond plot description. That's mostly because I cannot access all the secondary sources, including The Shadow over Derleth: Disseminating the Mythos in The Trail of Cthulhu. Can anyone here? If more can be found I will be happy to change my opinion to keep. Daranios (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patryk Aleksandrowicz[edit]

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

The subject seems to fail WP:NBIO and possibly WP:NFOOTY? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, theres nothing in the article that is reliable, verifiable, independent, he appears not to have played at higher levels --Devokewater (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not even meet our already insanely overbroad notability criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL through dozens of appearances in the Greek leagues, tiers 1 and 3 (Super League Greece and Football League Greece, both of which are listed at WP:FPL), as confirmed by Soccerway and 90minut, sources which are both already present in the article. So please tell me @Piotrus: how you undertook WP:BEFORE; please tell me @Devokewater: why you state there is nothing reliable, verifiable or independent when there is, or how he has not "played at higher levels" when he has; and please tell me @Johnpacklambert: how he does not meet NFOOTBALL when he does? Article needs improving, for sure, but do not lie and say he doesn't meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I have found, speaking neither Polish nor Greek - this about Polish footballers in Greece, this which seems to say he also made 3 appearances in the Polish top division... Giant Snowman 10:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giant Snowman there’s nothing to suggest that he is a notable footballer IMHO he is the equivalent of a UK non-league player, who has played a couple of games as a squad player in the lower echelons of football. He’s played in Greece, OK no disrespect but that’s like playing in the Scottish third division. --Devokewater (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is - he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. He has made numerous appearances in a WP:FPL - so he is notable, where a Scottish third division player would not be (because the Scottish 3rd division is not. FPL). If you cannot differentiate between the two then, respectfully, you should not be commenting on these kind of AFDs. Giant Snowman 11:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, we need more input from people who are not fans, i.e. have no CoI. It's is funny we tend to say "don't edit articles about your company or family" but we have no problems with fans of topic x creating policies which say "anything related to x is notable". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Neither of the cites linked strikes me as particularly reliable, and I still don't see any coverage satisfying GNG. NFOOTY can be helpful in borderline cases, but right now this not appear to be borderline. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: - both are considered reliable and very widely used on Wikipedia. What about the other sources I have also found, given you failed to undertake BEFORE? Giant Snowman 14:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it hard to believe he can be notable for playing for a club for which we lack an article. Especially after having seen so many articles on clubs with horrendously low sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: - eh? He's played for a large number of clubs in top tier of Poland and Greece, we have articles about the clubs and the leagues, so why are you talking about 'a club for which we lack an article'? Giant Snowman 14:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, copying over my rationale from the talk page, when I dePRODed this article back in July:

"He meets NFOOTY through his appearances in four leagues that are listed at WP:FPL: the Ekstraklasa in Poland and the Super League, Football League, and Gamma Ethniki in Greece. In total, he has played three matches in the Ekstraklasa (as shown at this source) and 194 games in the three Greek leagues (as shown at Soccerway and 90minut). For GNG, his 90minut profile lists several articles dating back to 2013. He has received coverage in Gazeta Wyborcza, shown here, as well as the papers in Toruń, shown here. In Greek, his name is "Πάτρικ Αλεξάντροβιτς", and a search of that (on Google) turns up some 6,000 results as well." Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, mentions in passing or niche portals. Btw, Gazeta.pl =/= Gazeta Wyborcza. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Kijawianka team...hua? no brainer delete. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: sorry, what does that mean? Giant Snowman 21:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s the team he is playing now, very small, IV division, he did play for Polonia Warsaw back in a day thou - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That logic does not work. The fact he now plays for a minor team is irrelevant; what is relevant is his long career playing in top leagues for a number of years. By your logic former Presidents would not be notable! Giant Snowman 10:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NFOOTY pass. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily meets NFOOTY. I don't know why User:Piotrus hasn't withdrawn this nomination! Nfitz (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as pro-footballer meets NFOOTY.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Warsaw. (non-admin closure) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 18:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Management of the University of Warsaw[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not mandatory to proof notability in English, other languages are also allowed. The Banner talk 09:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is saying non-English sources are not allowed, of course they are (per WP:NOENG). Your comment is irrelevant to the issue discussed (lack of notability) which makes it a strawman argument~and the rest leaves just pure WP:NOTAVOTE... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If non-English sources are allowed why did you do your WP:BEFORE only to find English language sources, as stated in the nomination? The Banner talk 18:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - A copy-paste error I fixed, thank you for pointing it out to me. In this case I also did a BEFORE in Polish. How is your BEFORE in Dutch, btw? Did you find anything? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to University of Warsaw per the nomination. Also of interest is WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which provides that Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field. Given the fact that only routine coverage and interviews on the subject was found (which are unlikely to be independent on the subject), it seems unlikely this faculty is one of the rare exceptions with significant contributions in the field of management, or is otherwise notable enough to warrant its own article. Dps04 (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Warsaw. Not a very likely search term, but you never know … AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Warsaw, is a meh alternative to deletion, and I see no indication that the Faculty is individually notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, I'm the creator of the article. I believe it should stay, the faculty is the oldest one in Poland in its field, it's ranked 1st in Poland and 3rd in Eastern Europe. It's known abroad. Please see these sources, thank you.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] MarWro (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a single of those sources seems WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Lost and Found[edit]

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

Article itself asserts non-notability at the end: "Beyond this forum post, the promos and the video on YouTube, no other evidence remains that Cartoon Lost and Found ever aired". Obscure, possibly non-existent, cartoon pilot. Does not meet GNG. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article appears to be entirely comprised of WP:OR. But even without that issue, there are absolutely no reliable sources that discuss this supposed obscure TV show at all, so even if it did exist, it certainly was not notable, and does not pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the nomination. Pahiy (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as hoax-y OR with no reliable sources. --Lockley (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Rogermx (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, I didn't write this article however I did do much of the research on it for another site, the Lost Media Wiki, and I can present physical evidence this special did in fact air, and was genuinely documented. This is, in essence, original research however it is confirmed by empirical evidence. If you want I can present links to the only surviving, known segment of the special, proving that it is not in any respect a "hoax" and it did in fact air, at least once, on television before being lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18-Till-I-Die (talk • contribs) 00:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amara Fashion House[edit]

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

Absolutely trash sources. Creator had a COI/UPE issue. See another nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inkfruit (third nomination). They self-declared that they are "working on Social Media Optimization". No reliable, independent, in-depth sources exist for this "fashion house". How it has stood for 10 years boggles the mind. Fails Wiki notability guidelines horribly. MaysinFourty (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC) PS, Note: Creator of this article was involved in other COI/UPE cases MaysinFourty (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MaysinFourty (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MaysinFourty (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)–[reply]

Delete. A peacockery-heavy article about an utterly non-notable shop. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 22:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inkfruit[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not sure how this has survived two nominations. Looking at the previous discussions, it looks as though the references could have done with closer scrutiny. The T-shirt printing company is not only utterly non-notable, but also has ceased to exist. The website does not work. The sources either mention it in passing or gush about it like a press release. Unable to find an iota of reliable, independent and in-depth coverage that shows this is notable. Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines, general and for organizations. MaysinFourty (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Creator of this article was involved in other COI/UPE cases and declared on their own user page: "I am currently working on Social Media Optimization". MaysinFourty (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MaysinFourty (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MaysinFourty (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 22:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Persaud[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. At best, what's out there is in passing and/or unreliable (WP:INTERVIEWS/bio-blurbs likely written by the subject or commissioned by him). Our bio was created 10 years ago by a WP:SPA~~, likely an undisclosed WP:PAID editor (WP:DUCK pattern...~~ oops, I take it back, this was written by a relative who disclosed their name on Wikimedia Commons: see author field in File:MDPimage.JPG, so this is "just" a WP:COISELF). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Top Gear (magazine). Tone 10:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gear Australia (magazine)[edit]

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

A brief article on a magazine that has been defunct for 5 years. Most of the content is derived from the parent British product, Top Gear (magazine). Perhaps merge some historical info to parent? Only 2 references, second no longer exists. Teraplane (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Top Gear (magazine), which could probably do with a rewrite with all the local editions listed in a discrete section. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Top Gear (magazine). Nowhere near enough coverage for its own article. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Batman Beyond characters. Tone 10:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jokerz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I did review the sources explicitly mentioned in the 'no consensus' AfD from 5 years back. They are sadly limited to (mostly) press-release-rehashing mentions that the gang will be included in one video game ( one sentence in passing, two sentence in passing, one sentence in passing, same, again). This is not about the video game, but again it's just a one sentence google hit. Do post if you see anything better, but right now I don't think there is anyting better to to then to redirect this to a list of characters in the BB. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Batman Beyond characters, which contains info on them already. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~Keep~~ I am finding that Jokerz is notable. The Jokerz have also worked their way into the ending of the Hollywood film Joker. I have added two sources: one of which says: The Jokerz were criminals and the most well known gang in Gotham.^[6] Lightburst (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but if this quote is the best we have, it is very much a passing mention and plot summary... hardly enough to rescue this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Perry, John C.; Pleshakov, Constantine (1999). The Flight of the Romanovs. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02462-9. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
^ http://wz.uw.edu.pl/aktualnosci/11645/sukces-wydzialu-zarzadzania-uw-w-rankingu-eduniversal
^ http://wz.uw.edu.pl/aktualnosci/40271/pierwsze-miejsce-studiow-wydzialu-zarzadzania-uw-w-rankingu-perspektywy-2020
^ https://www.mastersbooking.com/university-warsaw-faculty-management
^ https://eduniversal-ranking.com/business-school-university-ranking-in-poland/university-of-warsaw-faculty-of-management.html
^ Kogod, Theo (22 November 2019). "DC: 10 Criminal Gangs Everyone Forgot About". cbr.com. Retrieved 24 August 2020.

Redirect to BB character article. There is already enough information on that article; I don't think a separate article is warranted. Rhino131 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Batman Beyond characters per nom and Argento Surfer. This article is comprised almost entirely of plot information, and all of the available sources appear to be extremely brief, plot summaries, or both. Even the quote Lightburst mentioned above is describing them entirely in an in-universe perspective. I am also not finding any evidence that the group from Joker (2019 film) was based on, or was in any way related to, this group. The main list of Batman Beyond characters already describes the characters in extensive detail, so merely Redirecting there would be sufficient. Rorshacma (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Batman Beyond characters per others. Fails notability criteria for a standalone article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Batman Beyond characters as said by the others above. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of DC Animated Universe characters. Tone 16:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luminus (character)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Prior AfD from 2008 was kept due to claims of him being "a major character". Well, a decade since, we have a bit more refined policies, and a bit higher standards. Oh yeah, this is totally unreferenced and is as usual with WP:FANCRUFT, pure plot+list of apperances. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of DC Animated Universe characters. I'm very familiar with the character and the series but I don't see any hope for him passing GNG. Two episodes from the tv show and no real significant appearances in the comics. Still, it is a plausible search term and should be redirected. Rhino131 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Animated Universe characters, I suppose. The current article is entirely unsourced, and comprised entirely of plot summaries. Searching for sources brings up a few brief mentions in a couple of "Top Ten" style lists, but that's it. However, he is already listed on the main character list, so Redirecting there would logically be an alternative to deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, fails WP:GNG due to a lack of reliable sources. TTN (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R/IAmA[edit]

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

R/AmItheAsshole was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R/AmItheAsshole). it is very similar to this. There is not much significant coverage about it, and the few pieces written about it are not enough to meet WP:GNG. This is because they are not independent of the subject. The vast majority of them are because a famous person decided to host an AMA. This is not independent of the subject. The subreddit itself is not notable. The people who post on it sometimes are. This fails GNG. I-82-I | TALK 07:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with the nominator's analysis/arguments. CapnZapp (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this particular subreddit is significant and passes WP:GNG, thinking about things like [26] [27] [28]. And I do not agree that the influence and visibility of the people who appear in AMAs is separate from, and not indicative of, the subreddit's notability. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and Move. Moved to AskHistorians (non-admin closure) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 14:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R/AskHistorians[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion//r/AskHistorians

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

R/AmItheAsshole was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R/AmItheAsshole). it is very similar to this. There is not much significant coverage about it, and the few pieces written about it are not enough to meet WP:GNG. There is not significant coverage, just a few articles that are about Reddit in general, or obscure articles that don't meet the bar of GNG. I-82-I | TALK 07:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seemed to be some articles from legitimate RS, discussing the worth of the site, making this noteworthy. A number of them *feature this thread* specifically, from what I can see, they aren't just about Reddit generally Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominators rationale does not hold up, celebreties do not show up on r/AskHistorians nor is another sub being deleted relevant. This specific sub has coverage in reliable sources for its own merits.★Trekker (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I agree, simnply because one article on what appears to be a completely different reddit sub (and one of little note) was deleted, doesn't mean this article is invalid if this reddit sub is notable Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of significant coverage cited in the article, to which we can add these two peer-reviewed papers that discuss the site extensively, [29][30] two theses about it,[31][32] and many more mentions in Google Scholar results.[33] – Joe (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Joe Roe. Krakkos (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Rename to AskHistorians. The initial "r" looks like an operator, not a name. If it really does have 1,000,000 subscribers, I would ahve thought it was notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough reference to keep it on wikipedia.Iitianeditor (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 14:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Control-C[edit]

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

Keyboard shortcuts are not notable on their own. This should instead redirect to one of these three options: Cut, copy, and paste, Cut, copy, and paste#Common keyboard shortcuts, or Control key. Momo824 (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These pages should also redirect to one of those three options:

Momo824 (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator asserts that keyboard combinations are not notable, however this assertion is not grounded in policy. Ctrl-C is extensively in literature. Most definitely should not be redirected to copy-paste, as on many systems (e.g. UNIX, DOS) Ctrl-C is bound "cancel" which means the running program is terminated.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Control-C is also very common break character SIGINT (POSIX) for operation system terminals functioning similar to the break key on PC keyboards or the run/stop, r/s or stop key on some early 8-bit computers and calculators. PaleAqua (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No evidence given for lack-of-notability claim. A WP:BEFORE search indicates otherwise. ~Kvng (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Higly notable topic. Nominators claim that "Keyboard shortcuts are not notable on their own" simply is not true, pretty much anything can be notable.★Trekker (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarion Hotel Post[edit]

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

This hotel is not any more notable than any other hotel and fails WP:NBUILD. The article is mostly advertising language. Wikiwriter700 (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 02:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 02:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The building is a listed building which means that it meets the cultural heritage criterion of WP:NBUILD. Article quality is not a valid reason to delete an article, but I think that the article could focus more on the building itself and that text that reads like advertising language should be toned down. Sjö (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason to have an article about this particular hotel is the building, sv:Gamla posthuset, Göteborg, which is notable in itself. Currently, that information is, as far as I can tell, covered only in this article about the hotel. Creating a separate article for the building would potentially change the notability of this article. /Julle (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The building is a listed building which means that it meets the cultural heritage criterion of WP:NBUILD. Indeed. WP:GNG and sources.BabbaQ (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Scream[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBAND. Available sources are actually about 1,2,3 band and the association of their band members with this newly formed band. Notability, if exists, can not be inherited. Hitro talk 05:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of source are about Animal Scream directly. I didn't even add any sources about 1,2,3 until this was flagged this for deletion. — comment added by StripedCucumberBeetle (talk • contribs) 20:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that 1, 2, 3 is the more notable identity with reviews of their albums in the Guardian and Pitchfork for example. Therefore perhaps this article or a new one should be based mainly on the 123 band with some mention of Animal Scream until they may become more notable when the article can be refocussed. A redirect titled Animal Scream could redirect to the 123 article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we're being honest, only difference between getting a review in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Guardian is how much you're willing to pay for a publicist. I fail to see how a paper with over 100 thousand daily subscribers is insignificant press. talk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create

I've opposed deletion. There's been no real reason given other than certain big newspapers are better than other big newspapers. comment added by StripedCucumberBeetle (talk • contribs) 17:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Abraham Mason[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE - For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". WP:BEFORE revealed no additional WP:RS that addresses the subject directly and in-depth that would establish notability. // Timothy :: talk 19:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete: no reliable sources found to establish notability criteria.Tinton5 (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. Searching for "Albert Mason", I find a fair number of newspaper articles from the '50s about his experiments with hypnotism, and this account in a book debunking fringey theories. Debatable whether his miraculous "cure" of warts by hypnotism falls under WP:1EVENT. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Having just added a bunch of newspaper sources, I'm now a firm keep. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete while I respect AleatoryPonderings vote, I've not been able to find those newspaper articles he mentions, and the book by itself is not enough to meet WP:NBIO. If they could add the articles, I'd be happy to reconsider my !vote. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eddie891: Voici :) Again, it seems like he got coverage for just this one supposed cure, but I'm not sure a move to Albert Mason's cure of warts by hypnotism would be very felicitous … AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep Meets GNG per improvements by AP. I found some other sources as well, will add later. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears notable per the RS and the AleatoryPonderings improvement. Wm335td (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus Fuels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Prometheus Fuels

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

Prometheus Fuels is a small tech start up that does not meet Wikipedia's GNG. They currently have 25 employees listed on Linkedin. Their references primarily consist of paid media from unreliable sources. They have no press coverage from reliable sources, other than the Bloomberg article. This article's sole purpose is to serve as an advertisement for the company. This a good example of unambiguous advertising or promotion. User talk:DrAngstrom is a SPA that was heavily involved in the creation of the Prometheus Fuels page. Additionally, User:DrAngstrom admits to having a COI on his talk page and is most likely an employee of the company. Sonstephen0 (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Science magazine https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/former-playwright-aims-turn-solar-and-wind-power-gasoline Motor Trend published in MSN https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/recycling-combustion-creating-fuel-from-carbon-dioxide/ar-BB17xG6q also gave them significant coverage in a reliable source, as well as the Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-30/in-silicon-valley-the-quest-to-make-gasoline-out-of-thin-air you mentioned. Dream Focus 17:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that DrAngstrom had nothing to do with the current article, just an earlier draft that got deleted. Someone else created this article months later. Dream Focus 18:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unambiguous promotion appears to be a stretch but WP:CSD is the first place to take that claim. WP:COI and WP:NPOV can be addressed through improvements to this short article. Evidence of notability appears to be good based on the cited souces here. ~Kvng (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kvng: as a point of information, prior to this AFD, a speedy deletion tag was placed on this article asserting unambiguous promotion. I declined that request because I did not view it to be unambiguous. So just to answer your process question (your first sentence), the proper process was followed. --B (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created the first draft of this page after learning that User talk:DrAngstrom had written one which I felt wasn't up to Wikipedia quality standards. In addition, from what I can tell they are indeed currently working at the company (a classic COI). However, I don't know them personally and can confirm they were not involved in the creation of the page at all, or my impulse to create it. Quite the opposite — because of that I decided to discard their old material and write a fresh entry based on the several publicly-available sources I found (which don't appear to be paid? 🤔 unsure). It seemed that a relatively new company (late 2019) with as much already written about it was important enough to merit an article. Not really surprised an employee felt the same, but equally unsurprised they didn't know how to do it properly. I've been a casual contributor for 14 years and did the best I could.

–OrinZ (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 18:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There seems to be general agreement there could be an article at this topic. There is disagreement if the current article is that one, or if it should be the one in draft, as it is now, or if it should be some other formulation and we should redirect until such a time. Given that no one is suggesting outright deletion I am closing as no consensus for now; if someone needs a histmerge with the draft please see me on my talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones in 2011[edit]

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

Seems to be a template someone created, not sure it is something that can be hugely expanded. I could be wrong, so decided not to use CSD. Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I move to withdraw this AFD (see below). - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's a yearly tropical cyclone article, like Tropical cyclones in 2019. There is already a draft at Draft:Tropical cyclones in 2011. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would have asked for a redirect to the draft, but since redirects from mainspace to draftspace are deleted as WP:R2, it is best if this is deleted. Java Hurricane 12:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After some discussion, I'm changing my !vote to Redirect to Tropical cyclones by year. We can always merge the draft in here once it is ready. Java Hurricane 01:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JavaHurricane. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tropical cyclones by year. Noah^Talk 14:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mass improvements needed but not delete All there is to it from me. ~ AC5230 talk 14:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC) (10:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time)[reply]
Keep, but merge the draft into this article. It wouldn’t seem so stubby then. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the draft. SMB9 9thx my edits 23:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either this is taken from the draft, or merged into the draft. My decision here should be not taken as to Keep or Delete. I also have an interest on working in this article to give some help. SMB9 9thx my edits 12:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards this being kept, but this article needs improvement with some copyediting from the draft. If this article got redirected because of opposition in the comments (which may overwhelm the withdraw request), i'll copy some of the contents article had into the draft anyway. SMB9 9thx my edits 08:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to original target (Tropical cyclones by year) as a valid alternative to deletion and merge existing content into the draft. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Tropical cyclones by year. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 09:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Massive improves done by Janm 7, so different article now. Dream Focus 21:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, if this article got redirected, i'll notice Janm 7 to continue working the article on the draft. I'll copy some of the content to the draft. SMB9 9thx my edits 06:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You want to waste time putting it as a draft, and then back again later on, for what reason? There is enough valid information to justify its existence already. It is far more likely work will be done on an article in mainspace than drafts anyway. Dream Focus 12:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't understand why we are moving this to a draft space. That seems quite contrary to the spirit of the wiki. Pretty much all our articles are works in progress, I can understand if a draft was something that wasn't notable, but this is not such a topic and quite a bit of work has been put into it. In fact, I can't understand why this wasn't moved out of draft space sooner! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - after Janm 7 did a massive and incredible expansion, I would like to withdraw this nomination. And also, I tip my hat to this incredible editor! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chris.sherlock, Can i copy the contents from the draft into the article? Thank you. SMB9 9thx my edits 10:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMB99thx I would wait for this AFD to finish, then request that the draft's history be merged into the main article. See Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the article is still in poor shape with almost every month blank. Noah^Talk 19:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which can be fixed over time. Articles on Wikipedia don’t come out fully formed immediately. -Chris.sherlock (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the draft space exists. Noah^Talk 00:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the purpose of draft spaces. They are not designed to have fully formed articles pop out onto main space. They are literally meant to be there for a short period of time to be developed and determined whether they are notable enough to actually exist. They help new editors to propose articles that they believe should be on Wikipedia where they may have a COI, aren’t sure how to go about editing, or need assistance with their edits. They are time limited and at a certain point they need to be moved to mainspace.

The fact is that there is a fleshed out, incomplete, but still quite adequate article in draft space, and a completely empty article in mainspace that has started to be fleshed out now. This leads to now two articles. It’s absurd. And Wikipedia is a wiki, and articles are constantly being worked on and expanded all the time. That’s literally the mechanism we use, and unless a major policy has gone through stating we need to vet all new articles (and this has been proposed many times over the decades, and consistently rejected) that’s the way we produce material on Wikipedia.

AFC is a process to help reduce disruption and drama. It’s not a mechanism to form valid articles in final form. We do this through mainspace. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is an article with no prose acceptable? It has a one-sentence lead. There are only two sources present throughout the entire article. Although a subject like this obviously is notable, there aren't enough sources there to prove it. Keep in mind that the table with the number of storms in the year is OR and also entirely unsourced. Draft space isn't just for AfC... It is meant to be a space where people collaborate on topics that aren't yet ready to be an article. This at least needs to have the summary of the year correct and sourced before it can be an article. The fact the infobox and global effects have no stats shows this isn't quite ready. Noah^Talk 01:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if the topic is notable, then all the things that currently make the article poorly written can be fixed. The solution to an article with a one sentence lead is to expand the lead. There are plenty of sources around cyclones that can be sourced to update the article. Just look at NOAA or any related site. The solution to a list of unsourced storms is to find sources for the storms and remove those that have no source. That’s not original research, either there were a number of storms or there weren’t.

There is another space where people are meant to collaborate to write articles. It’s called mainspace, and has been that way since the very beginning of Wikipedia. Unless you think nobody collaborates on articles in mainspace? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

draftify move the content from here to the draft and redirect the article to Tropical cyclones by year for now. It seems to be incomplete and needs time to develop before it should be mainspaced. I understand the idea that people can work on the article in the mainspace, but there is already a suitable redirect target and the draftspace is literally designed to be a space for articles to be developed further, which is what this article needs. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the purpose of draft space. I think you need to review the criteria in Wikipedia:Drafts. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Drafts are administration pages in the Draft namespace where new articles may be created and developed, for a limited period of time. They help new articles to develop and receive feedback before being moved to Wikipedia's mainspace. and later under WP:DRAFTIFY: The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace.. What am I missing? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Draftifying should be a very rare outcome at AfD. It has two real purposes, first for CoI editing outside of mainspace, second to allow articles to be developed that would be at risk of being speedied in mainspace. These issues do not apply in this case. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's just not what WP:DRAFT says. If you have a problem with how that page is phrased, please look into changing it. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Nothing in WP:DRAFT says how to apply deletion policy to articles in mainspace; as an explanatory supplement, it is not expected to contradict policies or guidelines. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article exceeds start quality on a topic that passes GNG. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT the list passes WP:LISTN criteria. Also the nominator withdrew so I am unsure why the AfD remains open. Wm335td (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 07:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Cannon Hinnant[edit]

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

Not a notable shooting. Many children (and just people in general) are shot and killed all the time and there are not Wikipedia articles on their shootings. While it is true that this got some high profile media coverage, there is nothing that makes it stand out from other shootings of children which have gotten similar coverage. Andise1 (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I have been going back and forth with nomming this myself. There is no evidence that this has received more in-depth coverage than your average murder and also per WP:NOTNEWS. Praxidicae (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep Non-trivial coverage in national news (read: Reliable sources as per WP:RS/P), and the fact the story is so prominent in social media means we are getting coverage beyond the one event of the kid being shot. Coverage of the killing: Washington Post New York Times Of the funeral: Funeral of kid widely attended Of the story’s continued influence in social media: Funds raised for family: Continued coverage About the funds raised for the kid’s family: Continued coverage People getting suspended because of their social media posts on this matter The reason why we want to keep the article is because this is continuing to get coverage, and we need to make sure we reiterate that this killing is not racially motivated. Samboy (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That last part sounds a lot like trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. TompaDompa (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a violation of the not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible Keep Coverage by multiple sources which has been fairly sustained for weeks. To be fair much of the coverage covers the controversy rather than the event itself but that is still enough to pass WP:GNG. I have continuously tried to improve this article but all my edits have been reverted. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also just an afterthought, the nominator's reasoning for deletion seems to be more of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Saying that people are killed everyday so an article about that shouldn't exist is nonsense. Many women are sadly subjected to sexual violence and sometimes murder, and most don't have their own article, but that doesn't make incidents like this one any less notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as WP:NOTNEWS, and does not meet WP:EVENT, nothing about this tragedy shows it to be wikisignificant/lasting. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject appears to satisfy GNG and WP:EVENT. In particular the event has received in depth coverage, from a diverse range of reliable sources which has continued to the present. See WP:DEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been all over the news and social media. This is not your typical murder. Unlike other murders, this one has contributed substantially to American politics. There are plenty of child murders that are not notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, but this is not one of them. I also agree with Ad Orientem's reasoning. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scorpions13256: I may be low class... but I don't think I'm that low class.

-Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: Sorry. Was my reasoning not comprehensible? Was my reasoning "low class"? I don't quite understand your reaction. I rewrote my comment for clarity. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scorpions13256: Read your comment again... carefully. lol -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: There's an amusing typo in there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: My God. I think I got it. Why do I always overlook the most obvious things? Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scorpions13256: ROFL -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs expansion and improvements, but as of today it passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENT..BabbaQ (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article can be improved and it has been covered in national news no less. Ficboy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem-Project[edit]

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

Truly impossible to tell, reading this, if this is a genuine initiative—and, if it is, what it does. So an apparent a fortiori fail of WP:N, WP:V, etc. It's ostensibly a collaboration between the International Peace and Cooperation Center ([34]), Futura ([35]), and the Lassalle Institute ([36]). But it's impossible (at least for me) to tell what the nature of the collaboration is. Not quite WP:NONSENSE, but close in spirit. Sources are all primary, and mostly dead. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the opening line is overly promotional rubbish. We should not use phrasing like "win-win" in an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a press release for the scheme. Number 5 7 10:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is clear consensus that this article's attribution history should be kept and a lesser, but still present, consensus that this topic should probably be an independent article rather than merged into a related topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Roosevelt IV[edit]

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

Not independently notable. Notability is not inherited. Being a member of notable organizations does not necessarily make an individual notable. [37] and [38] are the only reliable source coverage and they are both essentially trivial.--Michael White^T·C 20:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC) --Michael White^T·C 20:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the given citations aren't adequate to establish notability. Neither is being a Roosevelt family member. Aside from minor mentions given above, the other sourced used either are questionable or don't focus on him specifically. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roosevelt family, as with his son. A subject need not be independently notable to be noteworthy for mention in a supertopic. BD2412 T 21:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to his father's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - People need to search better rather than making the automatic assumption that this is Not Notable - Inherited. For example THIS from the Racine Journal Times of Jan. 9, 1970 is an Associated Press biography of the 26-year old TR4 — substantial, independently published coverage dealing extensively with the subject. Carrite (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's a managing director of Lehman Brothers, which, love them or hate them or hate them a lot, is probably sufficient rationale for maintenance of a WP bio to start with. Beyond that, however, he is regarded as an expert national opinion writer on natural preservation, per THIS piece as seen in the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram of May 27, 1997. Carrite (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a wildlife conservation activist, his participation on various projects has merited FRONT PAGE COVERAGE more than once, such as this Dec. 14, 1999 piece published in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger. Carrite (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was also a featured keynote speaker, covered in the press, at THIS 2006 ceremony commemorating the Devils Tower National Monument. Pretty clearly a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

#1 reads more like a human interest story than significant coverage. Re managing director of Lehman Brothers, I disagree based on my quick research into the likely role of a managing director at Lehman Brothers. #2 is a piece by him, not significant coverage. From the first page of #3, it looks like the coverage is more about the event than him. In #4, there is only one sentence that refers to him.--Michael White^T·C 11:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of depth, I should also say that interviews like the first link Carrite provided don't count as independent coverage when they're based on the subject's own descriptions and can sometimes just be self-promotion. Their own writings also don't count when not independent of the subject, meaning the second link doesn't establish notability either. What we would need to merit an article are multiple pieces from publications not closely affiliated with Roosevelt that goes into depth on him. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: OK Carrit; you won me over! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of the sources provided in the last but one !vote
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on Mr. White's well-reasoned analysis of the sources above which shows we do not have sourcing that actually shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With all his engagements of various kind he seems quite notable. I think the users of Wikipedia would rightfully wonder "why isn't there an article about this person" if it were to be deleted. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and would ask "why isn't there an article about this person". Yet it appears we are strongly divided and unlikely to get consensus - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Carrite Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay Macintyre[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as an unremarkable ship captain. Lettler^hello 04:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 04:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 04:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 04:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, in accordance with WP:1E all relevant information can be placed on SS Empire Conveyor the ship he was captaining when it was torpedoed. Mztourist (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article repeating information about the torpedoing of the SS Empire Conveyor which led to the subject's death, along with some basic family genealogical information. The subject is mentioned on the SS Empire Conveyor page which is sufficient without giving undue weight to his unfortunate involvement there. AllyD (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One not-too-notable event. No other claim to notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, the event is covered in the ship article and he is mentioned there. Also NOTMEMORIAL. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is some agreement this building is inside a historic district but there is a clear consensus that it does not meet our standards of notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Port Townsend First Baptist Church[edit]

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

A thinly sourced article on a run-of-the-mill church in Washington State that fails WP:NCHURCH, WP:NORG, and WP:GNG. Hits, such as they are (e.g. [39]), are WP:ROUTINE mentions in local media. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No clear assertion or evidence of notability. Old != historic != notable. Reywas92^Talk 04:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Appears to be a contributing property to the Port Townsend Historic District a National Historic Landmark District designated in (1977) listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1976. Djflem (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem: Thanks for finding that! Question: does NRHP officially list what properties are "contributing" to a historic district? Or is it just a reasonable inference from the location of the property? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, i guess. I like to see coverage in wikipedia of historic buildings, but there is no substantial coverage in the article or sources which I can see about this church. Actually I see no mention of this church in the 28 page NRHP document for the historic district, here. Not every property within a historic district is notable, and here there is no description at all, no suggestion why this one might be a contributing property, if it is one. It is not covered in the many photos accompanying the NRHP document, photos here. Actually the photographed buildings all appear to have some architectural distinction, which this church does not have, per my interpretation of the photo in the article. It could be regarded as an intrusion. The article includes assertion it is one of 4 historic churches in the historic district, but that is not supported by the citation to Wayback machine copy of article wayback source here. There is assertion in the article that it was built in 1891 and majorly renovated later, but that is not supported by any citation. Per sign visible in Google streetview, the church was founded in 1890 but that does not mean the building dates from then. Per the verbal description of boundaries of the historic district in the last page of the NRHP document, and comparing that to Google maps, it does appear to be located within the district borders. Some more information, some story needs to be available before this should have a separate article IMHO. Redirecting to the historic district article is not appropriate, because there is no mention of it there and no source available to add anything there. Possibly it could be redirected to Northwest Baptist Convention, but I am not sure if it is a member of that, and there is no coverage of it or other individual churches there. There's no substantial content to save. It was created in 2009 by an editor who only started this article and has not edited since, so deleting it would not be hurtful to any current editor. --Doncram (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC) 14:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the document:"There are over 700 residences and 60 commercial structures within the Port Townsend Historic District. An exhaustive listing of individual buildings with detailed descriptions is beyond the scope of this nomination, however, a block- by-block survey has been conducted and a tremendous volume of data is on file.". Actually only about 7/8 buildings are specifically mentioned. Architectural interest is but one of many criteria used for NRHP, historical and cultural significance play big role as well. Language suggests that the entire area was included in district.Djflem (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is apparently an entire large area that is included in the historic district, i.e. all the buildings within the street borders described on last page are indeed included in the district. This is an old/early NRHP/NHLD listing, for which not as much detail is available as for more recent large NRHP or NHLD district listings. In a newer big listing, there would be an exhaustive, exact address by address specification of which buildings are non-contributing (e.g. think a modern convenience store or gas station which is an architectural intrusion), or are deemed "contributing" to the historic nature of the district, or even further being "very important contributing" or some such term. In this case of an old listing, I am guessing that there never was determination of which structures were contributing or not. And I would guess that if one got the block-by-block survey info, which presumably is available in some state or local files, it would kinda sorta confirm this building is of "contributing" type, whether or not that language is used. Because indeed if it was in fact built in 1891, that is old and during a short building boom before an economic crash in 1893 or so (if i recall correctly what the NRHP document was saying), and either the Baptists were there then or some other church group was there, and it would be cultural/historic whatever. It would be fine by me if there was some later assessments of significance, say from some local newspaper article(s) about Ye Olde Baptist Church. Anyhow, we do not have such newspaper articles, nor do we have the block-by-block survey info, and there is AFAICT no available sourcing useable for developing article content here, hence (with some reluctance, perhaps) delete is the right AFD outcome, IMHO. Despite fact I do like people developing articles about old churches that have survived, with or without NRHP listing info, but having some substantial info unlike here. --Doncram (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reading through the comments above, and doing an extensive WP:BEFORE including my newspaper account, I can find no record that this building is part of the historic district. I cannot find enough sources to make any determination. I do not think this building passes WP:GEOFEAT and I am not sure enough exists for WP:N Lightburst (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Port Townsend First Baptist Church is located at 1202 Lawrence Street 48°07′00″N 122°45′47″W / 48.116660°N 122.762952°W / 48.116660; -122.762952 and, as has been mentioned, placed well inside the district, which is described below and (from my reading) encompasses all the buildings within it.

The Port Townsend Historic District is bounded on two sides by topographic features (Port Townsend Bay, Admiralty Inlet and the bluff along Water Street) however, the extent of the district inland is less well defined. There exists a high concentration of historic structures throughout most of the area encompassed although there is no abrupt edge beyond which significant buildings are completely superseded by more recent construction. A gradual dilution exists at the periphery which necessitates a fairly arbitrary approach in establishing the limits of the district. The boundaries have been drawn to include as many of Port Townsend's historic buildings as possible without taking in large areas of unrelated modern development...Beginning at Port Townsend Bay in a northwesterly direction co-linear with Polk Street and continuing to the edge of the bluff along Water Street, then following the bluff toward the southwest to the vacated Scott Street right-of-way, along that right-of-way to its intersection with Jefferson Street, southwest along Jefferson one-half block then 90 degrees to the northwest along a line parallel to Scott Street continuing to Lawrence Street, northeast along Lawrence to Walker Street, northwest along Walker to Blaine Street, northeast along Blaine to Van Buren Street, southeast along Van Buren to Garfield Street, northeast along Garfield to Harrison Street, northwest along Harrison to Chestnut Street, north along Chestnut to F Street, east along F to Oak Street north along Oak to Taft Street, along Taft to a point mid-block between Adams and Quincy Streets, then 90 degrees to the northwest along a line parallel to Quincy and Taft Streets, returning along Quincy to Taft and continuing along Taft Street northeast to Admiralty Inlet.

--added by Djflem

Yes, Djflem and I both make the same determination based on that description plus Google maps and streetview that the building is definitely in the historic district. It is entirely proper to say the building is listed on the National Register. The standard National Register bronze or bronze-like plaque ("This building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places" or similar) could be posted on the building. --Doncram (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Just to clarify: given that you and @Djflem agree that the church is within the historic district, is your !vote still delete or has it changed? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote is not changed. --Doncram (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Buildings/structures within a NRHP HD are not automatically notable because they are within the district. The historic district is notable. Individual buildings within a HD can be individually listed on the NRHP and thus be notable (these would be contributing properties also). Individual non-listed buildings within a HD can be notable if they meet GNG (these could be contributing or non-contributing). This church is not any of these. MB 06:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't meet WP:GNG and to meet WP:GEOFEAT, it should be specifically listed as a contributing property. Alternatively, a sentence or so could be 'merged' to Port Townsend Historic District, but I don't really see the sourcing to justify that. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prakriti Malla[edit]

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

DGG's prod removed without reason by the usual suspect. Not one of the sources is actually WP:SIGCOV, duplicative coverage of viral image is clear failure of WP:BLP1E. Lots of youth receive recognition for various achievements but this is not Wikipedia notability. Reywas92^Talk 03:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-encyclopedic despite any trivial local coverage. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a WP:BLP1E at the very best, especially considering she is a minor, and while I'm no expert on the reliability of Nepalese and Indian media, I have my doubts about the reliability of a media organisation that claims a 9-year old has the best handwriting in the entire world. I will say, this is clearly not just local coverage, Maharashtra is most certainly not even in Nepal. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly non-encyclopedic coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aza24 (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Norinco. Tone 07:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Type 83/WM-40[edit]

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

Notability not asserted or established for military product, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Prod declined without reason by you-know-who. Reywas92^Talk 02:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Norinco article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. I will move this article into the userspace of CNMall41, where they can work on it. There is not clear consensus that it meets NCORP, but there is support to allow this to develop further. In the meantime, I will create a redirect to WWC. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waltham Aircraft Clock Corporation[edit]

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

Non notable company. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable, independent, substantial sourcing Cardiffbear88 (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very strange article. Based on what is written, it does not appear notable. However, according to this reference, the Wikipedia page is incorrect. This reference is from 1914 yet the Wikipedia page says it didn't come into existence under that name until 1957. I will do some additional digging tomorrow. If it is/was part of the Waltham Watch Company it could possibly be included there with a redirect. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, did you do any additional digging? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, well, I can tell you its a mess. I just tagged WWC as needing more references as it is hard to verify some of the information and other information conflicts with the sources. The WWC page would need a complete rewrite and a lot of research before knowing for sure 100%. I can say that based on the research I have done, WACC was at one point part of WWC. I would say merge the title to WWC for now and after some cleanup on that page we can determine if WACC qualifies as a standalone. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After looking further, it is an independent company that was spun off of WWC after it went out of business in the 1950s. For the moment, I would still say merge and we can always start a page later if its found to be notable. Or, I can simply add it to the WWC draft that I am working on here (feel free to contribute to the draft if you like). --CNMall41 (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the book I added over at WWC? It's a whole book dedicated to WWC. Graywalls (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did but it is paywalled so I am trying to put together what I find through Newspapers.com at the moment. Feel free to add to the draft if you like (assuming you have access to JSTOR). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think this is sufficient proof that these aren't just similarly named companies.

Graywalls (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41:, it is not paywalled. 1905 book, public domain. You can even download it. https://www.google.com/books/edition/History_of_the_American_Waltham_Watch_Co/7kM2AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 Graywalls (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Waltham Watch Company. The target is definitely notable. A book dedicated to the history this company has been written about it.Graywalls (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cardiffbear88: - Actually, would you be inclined to have this moved to draftspace? I think it has enough sources to meet WP:NCORP but they are mixed in with quite a few others about the Waltham Watch Company. I can ping you when I get it updated but working on the main WCC page at the moment. That way you can review it prior to going to mainspace.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @CNMall41: absolutely - very happy to support moving to draftspace, especially as you’ve located potential sources that could help to improve the article. Thanks for your work on this article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Cardiffbear88. You can see my sandbox where I have done a substantial cleanup of WWC. Will get to working on this one as soon as the other is finished. If notable, we can move it back to mainspace. If I cannot find enough to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT, I can simply request it be deleted from my userspace. Thanks again. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaperone code[edit]

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

This article claims that its subject "has been identified as one of the main regulatory mechanisms underlying cell function in biology". In support of this extravagant claim, it cites two papers from 2013. One has been cited 57 times; the other has been cited 131 times. "Chaperone code" gets a grand total of six hits at PubMed. In light of this, I have a very hard time believing that this article is verifiable or even substantially true. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps also worth noting that both the papers cited are co-authored by the same person, who by the looks of it also wrote this article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As written, the article text is largely uninformative, reading like the hype section of a lab website. Like the nominator, I have been unable to find evidence that "chaperone code" is a generally established term. The idea appears to have been legitimately published, but it does not meet the standards for having an article. XOR'easter (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per XOR'easter. Seems to lack significant independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the additional sources found by PainProf. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. The claims are extravagant but there's been no coverage. I teach genetics and never heard of this. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In contrast to the above, these are not extravagant or incorrect claims overall. I wrote a whole deletion rationale and then I double checked I PMC after having a thought about Pubmeds weaknesses for concept searches. I found two review papers directly addressing the subject in these terms in JBC (so a reliable journal IMO) published very recently August and July, which have this as the subject by two completely different research groups (and independent from the first group). This indicates significant coverage in reliable sources. ^[1] ^[2] PainProf (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Nitika; Porter, Corey M.; Truman, Andrew W.; Truttmann, Matthias C. (2020-07-31). "Post-translational modifications of Hsp70 family proteins: Expanding the chaperone code". The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 295 (31): 10689–10708. doi:10.1074/jbc.REV120.011666. ISSN 0021-9258. PMC 7397107. PMID 32518165.
^ Backe, Sarah J.; Sager, Rebecca A.; Woodford, Mark R.; Makedon, Alan M.; Mollapour, Mehdi (2020-08-07). "Post-translational modifications of Hsp90 and translating the chaperone code". The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 295 (32): 11099–11117. doi:10.1074/jbc.REV120.011833. ISSN 0021-9258. PMC 7415980. PMID 32527727.

Keep per WP:HEY by @PainProf. Not withdrawing this nom because there seems no consensus as yet on WP:N/WP:V issues, but I'm convinced by PainProf's work that this is a notable and verifiable concept. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian and XOR'easter: Would either of you consider the delete vote, I'm not sure if there is a consensus for keep yet. PainProf (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~and merge to Chaperone (protein)~~. One needs a review article to justify this page, and there was one, in TIBS: [40] Cracking the Chaperone Code: Cellular Roles for Hsp70 Phosphorylation (2017). But I doubt that we need the separate page because the number of publications on the "Chaperone code" is very limited (two above, this review + one more [41]). Perhaps the content would be better served by creating an additional subsection in Chaperone (protein) named "Post-translational modifications" and placing this content there.My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think merging isn't a good idea, there is a lot more content that should be covered, at the very least core mechanisms such as ADP ribosylation, Acetylation, Ampylation, Thioloxidation and ubiquitination which I plan to add later, probs better to have a shorter paragraph at chaperone and a link to a main article to avoid a crazy amount on this to the detriment of an article which is a bit lacking in other important aspects of chaperones. Those JBC articles are reviews... and the original paper coining the phrase was also a review together encompassing large numbers of publications. A bit similar to merging histone PTMs to histone. We could rename to Chaperone Post translational modifications and keep this bolded. PainProf (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, keeping it a separate page is also definitely an option. My very best wishes (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would have liked to see 1 or 2 more keeps (and/or withdrawn delete !votes) before actually closing this as keep which seems the general direction after PainProf's work.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Academy (hotel)[edit]

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

A non notable hotel with WP:BEFORE showing no evidence of reliable, substantial, secondary sources above and beyond WP:MILL Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The terrace which includes this hotel is Grade II-listed ([42]), so meets WP:GEOFEAT. The hotel itself isn't notable, but a possibility would be expansion and renaming to 15–49 Gower Street, London. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The hotel is notable and so is the conglomerate which owns it – YTL Corporation. As the building is also notable too, we are spoilt for choice. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claims of the nomination are false. It is easy to find reliable, substantial secondary sources such as this and that. WP:MILL is just an arbitrary and opinionated essay which only amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, contrary to core policy. In any case, the hotel is not run of the mill; it is exceptional being highly luxurious and historic. See WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:NEXIST; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. London is full of thousands of “luxury” hotels and there’s no evidence this is notable above any others. There’s no evidence that the lifestyle magazine meets the criteria of WP:RS, leaving a review from the Telegraph. It’s highly promotional and not encyclopaedic. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed lots of hotels in London – so many that we have a category for them. This is not a problem per our policy WP:NOTPAPER which states that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because we can, doesn’t mean we necessarily should. I still don’t believe this is notable per WP:GNG. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article. The proposal is that it now be deleted and it's the nominator's job to make a case for this action. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as coverage in Google News has it just at WP:GNG. Por ejemplo:
- Review in Telegraph
- Daily Beast coverage
- Travel Weekly has a short piece DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in theory, as not notable - not that there are no sources at all but not enough apparently to hold up the notability of this business, especially as most of them are promotional or else relate only to the building, not to the hotel. ("Interesting" is the suggestion above that it should be kept because there is already a category that it fits into). However, there do seem to be some possible redirect targets (Necrothesp's suggestion is a good one notionally but the article doesn't exist: is he willing to put it together straight away?), so I suppose, without much enthusiasm, that it could be pointed to one of them. Ingratis (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Telegraph has reviewed hundreds and hundreds of hotels, this and routine industry news is not notability. GEOFEAT is not met with a Grade II listing, that generally requires grade I or II*. Reywas92^Talk 19:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that isn't the case. WP:GEOFEAT clearly covers all listed buildings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. Notable 5 star hotel. Wm335td (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 14:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slaughter Beach (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Slaughter Beach (band)

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

Minor band without a major release and a well-known record label behind them. Appears to have gone silent since 2016. Blåmes (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources already in the article such as Clash, Noisey (part of vice.com) DIY (magazine) and Pigeons and Planes (part of Complex) so passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the refs in the articles meets the criteria of GNG Thepilipalasgirl (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are assertions that this passes GNG, but nobody's provided WP:RS which haven't been refuted. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ademuyiwa Adebola[edit]

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

Biography of a non notable blogger who has won what appears to be a non-notable award. We don’t have in-depth coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find anything that suggests notability --Devokewater@ 09:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is notable in its locality for children's advocacy work and a state coordinator for the location's President online media advocacy, asides blogging. Award is notable in the locality and has been consistent for 4 years. Kindly suggest other improvements to article other than deletion tags, as author (myself) is a strong supporter of Wikpedia standards. 2dmaxo (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @2dmaxo: in this article you’ve cited Twitter, which isn’t acceptable as a source. You’ve cited various pieces written by the article subject (blogs, portfolio) and a couple of the sources you’ve used won’t open for me at all. Which do you think are the sources which show the best in depth coverage of this subject, written independently of him in a reliable source such as a bylined article in a national newspaper? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mccapra: the Twitter links will be removed after my response here and be replaced with acceptable references. However, if you can spare the time, its usage for reference #3 was explained on the article's talk page and #5 was to add depth to references #4 and #6. I have gone through the 23 references cited (including the 2 of Twitter) and they are all active. References #7 (Vanguard Newspapers is a reputable national print and online resource) and #20 (TheCable is a reputable national online news resource) covered subject's advocacy works. Thanks! 2dmaxo (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks I’ll look at the references again today. Mccapra (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK @Mccapra: Thanks! 2dmaxo (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment going through the sources in detail this is what I have:

1 – is not about the article subject

2- shows that he won a non-notable award

3- twitter link confirming that the subject has been appointed Lagos State coordinator for the Buhari New Media Center. This appointment is an ordinary media job and does not confer notability.

4-confirms that he is one of a number of people who survived a bomb blast. Does not confer notability.

5-the subject’s own twitter account, confirming that he survived the bomb blast

6-isn’t about the subject and doesn’t mention him

7-A piece in Vanguard which contributes to notability

8-is an opinion piece authored by the subject. You could argue that the fact he was invited to write it indicates that he must have notability, but all we have here is his opinions, not independent comment on his opinions.

9,10,11,12,13,14 are blogs written by the subject

15 and 16 are about his own writing, not independent comment on him

17 – repeats 3

18,19 confirm that the subject was the public relations officer for the Better Nigeria Youth Forum. This does not make him notable.

20, 21 are clearly a press release written by the subject himself

22 another promotional piece

23 is the subject’s own portfolio website

So overall a great effort at promoting the subject, but apart from a single piece that helps a bit with notability, it's all PR, trivia, and the subject's own material. Mccapra (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello @Mccapra: thanks for taking time off to go through the references. I am relieved they opened. Do permit me to correct your impression of 'non-notable award' and 'ordinary media job'. PALEC Awards is notable in Nigeria in the sector it focuses on, and if you require an extensive list of past winners in their categories, I will share with you. Lagos State is the most important state in Nigeria, and being the coordinator of a Presidential media centre is beyond 'ordinary media job' and has serious political undertones as I explained on the subject's talk page. However, article is focused on subject's children advocacy which is rarely covered in Nigeria's Wikipedia and my contribution is to promote subjects that are notable in my local communities so local readers can search and read of them as Wikipedia's importance and usage grows in Africa. If it is permissible at this stage, do allow I work on the references you cited as trivia. Thanks,once again! 2dmaxo (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can improve the references during this discussion that’s great. I’m not spending any more time on this however. All the best Mccapra (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello @Mccapra: Forgive my late reply as I had been off internet access area for some days due to work. Okay, I would work on the references. Thanks and kind regards. 2dmaxo (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, and suggest to 2dmaxo that adding any more sources that do not provide it would be a waste of time all around. Ravenswing 16:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello Ravenswing subject is notable in its locality for children's advocacy work and a state coordinator for the location's President online media advocacy, asides blogging. Award is notable in the locality and has been consistent for 4 years. Significant coverage can be seen on reference # 2 and 9. (Do note I edited the reference list after initial conversation with Mccapra. However, my limited access to internet limits further work on the subject. I would work on it further in a week's time. 2dmaxo (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @2dmaxo: you can’t !vote twice. You can comment as many times as you like but you only get one ‘keep’ vote. Can you please amend your ‘keep’ to ‘comment’ thanks. Mccapra (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello Mccapra, amended! Do forgive the honest mistake! Thanks 2dmaxo (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would probably be helpful to hear from some new editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per 2dmaxo. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources added there. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — An independent before search shows he does appear in few reliable sources but those sources do not possess in-depth significant coverage as required by WP:GNG & aren’t sufficient for WP:BASIC. Furthermore @2dmaxo please see how to indent & WP:BLUDGEON. Thank you.Celestina007 12:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not a lot of !votes here, but it's time to close this after a month. The article's referencing has been improved somewhat since listing, and simply clicking on the Google link in the AFD template reveals several English language sources about awarding of this medal, so I believe it meets the GNG. What it comes down to is that this is an encyclopedia, and the national awards of a country are encyclopedic knowledge based on past practice. If the filer wants to start an RFC about an SNG for national awards, they should do that. If, after an RFC, this award does not meet the SNG, it can be nominated again. Katie^talk 14:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medal "100th anniversary of the Azerbaijani police"[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE did not reveal WP:RS independent of the subject that addressed the topic directly and in detail beyond WP:ROUTINE mentions. // Timothy :: talk 12:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 12:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 12:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep state award of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Established by law dated October 02, 2017. The medal is dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Azerbaijani internal security agencies of the republic.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State awards like this are clearly notable. Sources clearly prove its existence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Per WP:WWIN "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." Just because it exists does not mean it is notable. If it is clearly notable, it should be easy to produce multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject to show it meets WP:GNG. // Timothy :: talk 10:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a special sign issued in memory of an event, on the occasion of anniversary dates, are clearly notable!--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The keep !votes are entirely based on feeling and opinion and have failed to support the keep !votes with any policies or guidelines. Subjects are notable because they have significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources that addresses the topic directly and in detail WP:SIGCOV. The sources provided are not secondary sources independent of the subject. None of the keep votes has provided (or even attempted to provide) sources that meet WP:RS criteria. Its existence is not enough to prove WP:N, and it is not enough to merit inclusion. "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful" WP:WWIN. // Timothy :: talk 10:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they're based on previous AfDs, consensus and, dare I say it, common sense that state awards should be seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So let’s notes here is no known good reason for deletion other than a flawed subjective view of the article. As per Necrothesp and Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) Cheers --Mekhdi Fayyazli (Talk) 13:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Elshad Iman (Elşad İman), when you say there is "no known good reason for deletion" you're ignoring the guidelines that others have stated such as WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:WWIN. You haven't even attempted to respond to these points, except to basically say WP:ILIKEIT and I think it should stay, so it should stay. The best advice I can offer is please take some time to read WP:N, WP:WWIN, and WP:RS, Wikipedia works based on policies, guidelines, and sources not on personal opinions. I offer this suggestion with only goodwill, it will help you be a more productive member of the community and will make your time here more enjoyable. Also many experienced editors offer to mentor individuals, you might post something at the WP:TEAHOUSE about getting a mentor to help you with notability and reliable sources; I have several I go to with questions, so I know it helps from personal experience, I'm not suggesting anything I don't already do. Another idea is thinking about getting into Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School (this isn't new page patrol, but the principles cross over). If you can backup your positions with policies, guidelines and sources, you'll be much more effective here and it will help build a consensus instead of everyone just going back and forth. Best wishes and again I offer the suggestions in goodwill. // Timothy :: talk 19:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Necrothesp and Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) Cheers. --Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added new sources to the article.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, we should treat officially established awards and medals given out by a nation as being notable if reliable sources, including official sources, prove that they exist and are indeed official national awards. As per DESiegel Cheers.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closer: Since there has been some discussion from both sides of this debate (from this and other recent AfDs) about needing an SNG guideline specifically for Awards, I believe both sides would be very interested in how you evaluated the arguments and made the close decision, so it can help shape and inform any new SNG proposal. Thanks for your help. // Timothy :: talk 13:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Those suggesting notability should probably explain which sources, policies, or guidelines, support their assertion that this article should be kept rather than merely asserting it as a national medal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply State awards like this are clearly notable and have been held to be notable at AfD in the past. Sources clearly prove its existence. which they all agreed. Article on state awards with official sourcing, it's past time for an RFC on the topic.

As per DESiegel, I believe that we should treat officially established awards and medals given out by a nation as being notable if reliable sources, including official sources, prove that they exist and are indeed official national awards. I can't and any previous discussion on this, or any relevant guideline, but it seems to have been longstanding practice. I think this is a case where an argumetn based on WP:OSE is in fact valid, as a matter of precedent. I set before you Category:Military awards and decorations by country and its many sub cats such as Category:Military decorations and medals of South Africa. A few examples, taken from that cat, are Ad Astra Decoration, Closure Commemoration Medal, Colonial Auxiliary Forces Officers' Decoration, Distinguished Conduct Medal (Natal), Efficiency Decoration (South Africa), Good Service Medal, Bronze iPhrothiya yeBhronzi and from other national categopries Cross of Honour and Military Merit, Order of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, Order of Danylo Halytsky, Order For Courage, and Turkish Armed Forces Medal of Distinguished Service. These are all supported largely or solely through official sources. Ther should probably be an SNG on this topic, but I think this is as good a place as any to start one, as SNGs ususlly start with practice.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment state awards are notable based on past consensus. The article could use some reference format but it is a notable award.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYPV[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating this page following a no consensus closure.

Currently defunct station which is left unreferenced for more than 10 years. There's barely any source about it. It is not even listed in the 2011 listing and 2019 listing by the NTC. Easily fails WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Superastig. No source since August 2009. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Against the Grain Tour[edit]

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

Looks like a WP:NTOUR failure. Of the three references in the article, one is to Facebook, and the other two are to what appears to be a unreliable fanpage. A Google search is bringing up mostly user-generated databases, the sources in the article, and places selling t-shirts from this concert. [43] is partially written by the band members, and isn't really in-depth on this tour, either. Everything else seems to be about the album of the same name or is only a listing in a list of Bad Religion tours. Not seeing a GNG or NTOUR pass here. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, undersourced concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR, the three sources are a Facebook error page and two articles from a fan page. Aspects (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If GNG is met, then the SNG criteria don't matter. (non-admin closure) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 14:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Wohlman[edit]

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

Has some significant coverage for GNG, however, notability is presumed, not guaranteed. Fails WP:ANYBIO/WP:NBOX; highest achievement in his career was a state level Golden Gloves championship. – ².O.^Boxing 22:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to clarify; I'm not saying NBOX and ANYBIO should be used to override GNG, I'm saying they are logical criteria to question the inclusion of the article as significant coverage does not guarantee notability. – ².O.^Boxing 15:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Whether the subject meets NBOX or ANYBIO is irrelevant; that he meets the GNG (to which both those criterions are subordinate), with coverage beyond routine sports coverage, is. The article's certainly overpromotional, but that's a content issue. Ravenswing 11:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing: GNG is not necessarily a reason to keep an article though, and I don't think NBOX and ANYBIO are irrelevant in cases like this; the specific criteria can help determine if a subject is actually notable within their field, which this one is not, regardless of the significant coverage.

""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article."

What makes this non-notable boxer merit his own article? Because he's had significant coverage? If we had articles on every person who has had significant coverage (especially boxers; prospects – which Wohlman was once upon a time – receive significant coverage early on but often go on to achieve nothing in the sport, as is the case for Wohlman, thereby making him a non-notable boxer) then Wikipedia would be filled with every Tom, Dick, and Harry who have had a few articles written about them.

This is where NBOX can help to determine if he actually merits his own article; has not competed, as an amateur, in the finals of a national tournament or represented his country internationally. As a professional, never won or challenged for any title and has never been ranked in the top ten of any major sanctioning body. Non-notable boxer that received coverage due to the fact he was picked out as a hot prospect by Freddie Roach.

"Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful."

My main basis for this nomination is WP:NTEMP; he may have been considered notable at the time the article was created in 2011, but as time has passed his lack of actual notability has become apparent. – ².O.^Boxing 12:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, you're reading NTEMP exactly backwards: notability is not transitory. I agree that the subject has, so far, proven unimportant as a boxer, but the GNG doesn't take that into consideration. What all the NSPORTS subordinate guidelines do is establish that someone who meets them is very likely to be able to meet the GNG. That our sports-mad culture places inordinate importance on covering athletes is regrettable, but the GNG doesn't have an opt-out clause for athletes. Ravenswing 14:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what the specific notability guidelines are for, but in instances like this they can be reasonably used to gauge if an article is worthy of inclusion. As significant coverage only "creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article", I feel further discussion on why this individual merits an article is necessary. Yes, he has significant coverage, but why should he have an article? What has he actually done? What is he notable for? What are his achievements? If the answers are "Because he has significant coverage", "he was a professional boxer", "nothing", and "absolutely nothing", then I feel the article should be deleted. – ².O.^Boxing 14:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes GNG. --HuntGroup (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not much of an "in-depth discussion" there. How about trying to answer some of the points above to try and give some validity to your vote? ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article, per WP:GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 13:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and also Delete (vote changed, I know this is an unorthodox !vote)

On the Keep side, I think these sources show he squeeks past WP:GNG: [44] (I fixed this reference in the article), [45], [46], [47], [48]. WP:BASIC allows for "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

On the Delete side, I think Squared.Circle.Boxing makes a good case regarding the presumption is not a guarantee of notability. This has always been an important consideration for me. The sources are weak individually and it really only squeaks past GNG collectively. WP:NPEOPLE states, "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" —that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"". On this basis, I believe the article fails notability. None of the sources indicate anything about the subject that would pass this criterion.

Because only Squared.Circle.Boxing replied to my comment and this is directed to him, I didn't strike and replace my whole comment as normal. If anyone wishes I would do so, I will revert, strike, and replace.

Original comment: // Timothy :: talk 05:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modified comment: // Timothy :: talk 12:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question of if he passes GNG. The first sentence of my nomination says he passes GNG LOL GNG is not the be all and end all for including an article. This was supposed to be, per GNG (which I've quoted multiple times), an in-depth discussion to determine why the subject merits his own article. I think the fact that nobody has been able to give me a reason beyond "passes GNG", says it all really. I'll quote it again in the hopes that people may take the scope of GNG on board for any upcoming AfD they vote at, ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article. So, in this discussion, GNG is actually irrelevant. – ².O.^Boxing 09:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand where you are coming from. I modified my vote above. Best wishes. // Timothy :: talk 12:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

10:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Anderson (linguist)[edit]

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

Likely autobiography. I have been reviewing a number of rather obvious sockpuppets adding cites to Anderson's work - this looks like self-promotion. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the autobiographical elements here? I don't see anything suspicious in this very short article. If it calls him a leading specialist in Munda linguistics, that shouldn't be taken as a big deal as there aren't many people working in the field. If anything, I would have thought that because of his involvement in that popular show he should be more well-known that most other linguistics, Munda or otherwise. – Uanfala (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. May have started as an autobiography, but as Uanfala says there's no overt self-promotion in the article as it stands, and Anderson seems notable. For example, his book Auxiliary Verb Constructions (2006) has been cited over 250 times [49] (WP:PROF#C1) and reviewed in reliable sources [50][51][52] (WP:NAUTHOR), and his work on endangered languages has been the subject of a documentary and covered in the press [53][54][55]. – Joe (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Roe, so where are the reliable secondary sources about him? Guy (help! - typo?) 08:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: The numbered links in my previous comment. – Joe (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS here at all. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly not an autobiography, the page was created by an editor who created quite a number of articles about linguists in that research area. Notability per sources given by Joe Roe. About the refspammer: anyone collecting and spamming sources about Munda-related topics would automaticaly come across Anderson. FWIW, much of the spamming also involved Brown's Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics. –Austronesier (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia has explicit policies against autobiographies. We need to delete anything that started in such way in clear defiance of our terms of use, if we do not we open ourselves up to promotionalist abuse.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What are the indicators that this is an autobiography? This is the initial version of the page, here's a list of all pages created by Stevey7788 (blocked in 2019 for COI issues as NPR, but that's a different story). No signifcant additions by any user or IP that reek of self-promotion. –Austronesier (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This may have started as undeclared paid editing rather than a direct autobiography (see block log of article creator) but that was nine years ago and the article has been significantly changed from its initial (very stubby) state. I added 11 reviews of 5 books; I think he passes WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However the page first originated, the content is at present flatly informative without being promotional, and the subject passes WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject seems to be notable as already discussed, and as the article stands today it doesn't look promotional. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this admirably brief BLP. Decent citations for low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per above. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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