The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keshav Tyohar[edit]

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

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

I will preface this AFD by saying that I believe the article was created and maintained by an undisclosed paid editing ring comprising Label4me and Ekucha belrima, who were likely the same person, and Ziofy, who may or may not have been the same person. Ziofy appeared a day after Ekucha was blocked to move the article back from Draft to Live space.

The subject is a 17-year-old Indian singer who was the first runner up on one of the seasons on a televised singing competition, Sa Re Ga Ma Pa L'il Champs. So far, I'm not convinced they would be notable per the WP:GNG.

There are currently 13 references in the article, most of them mashed together in one strand, as we see so often in UPE articles. Of these references:

These references support that the subject was either going to be on the TV show, or that he was a runner-up.India.com, Bhaskar.com, Jagran.com, Rediff, Financial Express is focussed on the winner, with a mention of Tyohar.

Of the rest:

• This India Today source is essentially an interview.
• This India Today source appears to be a short promo piece where the subject and another person talks briefly about the environment.
• Prokabaddi.com, an outlet for news about the sport kabbadi tells us that the subject sang the Indian national anthem before a game.
• Bhaskar.com seems to be talking about a local celebration being held in Patna to observe the subject's accomplishments on the show. And I guess also to praise his mother for raising him? It's hard to get nuance, because I'm looking at the Google translate version instead of the Hindi original, but it doesn't look like an in depth article about the subject, and there is no byline. This seems less about the subject than about the small-town-boy-makes-big. I also could be totally misinterpreting this, because I found another translated article that suggests the subject's last name means festival.
• This Telegraph India article seems to be a bit more focussed on Tyohar, but it includes interview quotes that tell us more about the subject than whoemver wrote the article. Meaning, it feels like an interview that was narrated a bit. I don't know if this counts as independent coverage, so other eyes are welcome. It doesn't make me excited that the article is written by "Our Correspondent". That feels press-release-y to me.
• Jagran.com seems to be puffing up Tyohar. No byline. Has the shape of a press release. This potentially could be construed in-depth if it's not a press release.
• Bhaskar.com seems interested in one of the subject's upcoming songs. I don't know if this qualifies as in depth about the subject, as his song is the focus.
• This Jagran piece is basically just a photo with embellished caption.

IMO, WP:TOOSOON, even if the article hadn't been polluted by UPEs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for above reasons. These sources don't establish notability. Balle010 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:PROMO mess fails WP:GNG. KidAd talk 04:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of them seem to be simultaneously independent, reliable and significant. Bhaskar may qualify as one, but would still fail WP:THREE. --Ab207 (talk) 18:21, 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. A discussion on whether or not to merge or redirect can happen after this AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marquita Bradshaw[edit]

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

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

She's not notable per WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Unelected candidates for office are not inherently notable. There is nothing else in her biography that confers notability. All sourcing is about the candidacy. Also note that the wire source "Bradshaw Overcomes Odds to Win Tenn. Senate Nomination" is present twice from NYT and once from ABC. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee. KidAd talk 22:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that winning a primary doesn't meet WP:NPOL, but her upset victory over a man well-supported by DSCC is significant in a way most primaries aren't. Being the first Black woman nominated for statewide office in Tennessee is a major milestone and inherently notable. These are major achievements, meeting WP:ANYBIO. The article needs improvement, and I will work on it. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  HouseOfChange, and also Djflem and Nightenbelle, since you said "keep per HouseofChange", and Scope creep since you gave no reason at all: how exactly does winning an upset in a Democratic Party primary election that receives very little news coverage, because it's a heavily Republican seat, meet WP:ANYBIO? That requires meeting either The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, which is not the case, The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, which is also not the case because winning a primary election is hardly a "widely recognized contribution" to anything, and The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication is also not the case. So, how does this meet ANYBIO? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well... since you asked "Being the first Black woman nominated for statewide office in Tennessee is a major milestone and inherently notable." This is what does it for me... and like I said- the Women in Red project in which the goal is to help eliminate the imbalance of number of biographical articles on women on WP. There are also multiple RS that support her achievement as the first black women nominated (let alone to win!!) for statewide office in TN.Nightenbelle (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BASIC and being a notable first. Djflem (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Muboshgu: per ANYBIO, a "well-known and significant honor" x 2. First, to break through the barrier of color and gender to become the first Black woman chosen to be a major-party Senate candidate,[1][2][3] and second, the "astonishing"[4] "shocker"[5] win covered widely by national media -- very unusual degree of coverage by non-local media, 3 stories from AP alone. And they cover the win because it was so unusual as to be "significant:" the first primary loss in a decade for any DSCC-backed candidate.[6] HouseOfChange (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee. She will most likely fade into obscurity after the election. Nojus R (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect looks like a good solution to me. Balle010 (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per HouseOfChange or Selective Merge 2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee.Djflem (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep scope_creep^Talk 10:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per House of change and also women in red project. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article meets WP:BASIC. I think being written about by the New York Times, the Associated Press, Roll Call and the Tennessean indicates being the first Black woman nominated for statewide office in Tennessee meets WP:ANYBIO.   // Timothy :: talk  11:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per above answers, notable primary win that defied expectations, we've got precedent for this in the past - see Alvin Greene for example. Kingofthedead (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepconsidering above answes, but it's also worth noting that she winning the primary also marks the first time an African American woman has won a statewide primary of any major party in Tennessee which is, on and by itself, a notable achievemnt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.170.72 (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Bradshaw does not have notability outside of this one election, and all of the coverage in reliable sources is related to this one election. It's a clear-cut WP:BLP1E situation. Contrast that with someone like Cori Bush, who similarly won in an upset, but who had a prior career in activism and electoral politics that received coverage. -LtNOWIS (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For what it's worth, Bradshaw's opponent, Bill Hagerty, has never held elective office either, and he still has a lengthy page full of largely trivial information. Besides, I, a random user, came to Wikipedia specifically looking for information on Marquita Bradshaw and found her page helpful. I strongly agree that her primary win as a Black woman makes her notable in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPbio (talk • contribs) 10:49, 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 delete. Tone 04:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arpita Mukherjee[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Tried to remove some promo material (spotify, itunes, soundcloud, shazam) before nominating here. Decided the sources don't establish notability. Sources other than those mentioned in my source assess table aren't worth discussing, imv. - hako9 (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/television/sa-re-ga-ma-pa-winner-arpita-mukherjee-wants-to-balance-bollywood-and-indie-music-4762398/	~ Published through IANS with same date. See WP:SYNDICATED		Just 1 para left, if you exclude direct quotations	✘ No
https://www.hindustantimes.com/music/it-s-an-opportunity-i-ll-always-cherish-sa-re-ga-ma-pa-winner-arpita-on-her-mubarakan-song/story-YVg5h09FWTJfUE6n3GnJLL.html	~ Published through IANS with same date. See WP:SYNDICATED		Just 1 para left, if you exclude direct quotations	✘ No
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/music/170516/melody-matters-arpita-share-her-favourite-playlist.html	It's an interview.		A very short interview	✘ No
https://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Cinema/2016-09-09/Sandeep-Batra-and-Arpita-Mukherjee-perform-live-at-the-music-Launch-of-Ek-Tha-Hero/252993		?	Just a trivial mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as passes two criteria of WP:NMUSIC criteria 9 with winning a notable television singing competition series and criteria 10 has had her songs featured on numerous nationally broadcast television series. As for the table, where does it say that the IAN news agency is not independent; from WP:SYNDICATED "Syndicated news pieces may be independent of the subject matter". Also if a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking uses that source and adds to it why should it not be reliable? imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding The Hans India, where is it determined as unreliable as there is nothing about it in the Reliable sources noticeboard archives and perennial sources list, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Winning a notable/non-notable (Sa Re Ga Ma Pa: Golden Voice Hunt is actually not at all notable) singing competition doesn't mean it passes NMUSIC sir. You need to win major music competition (emphasis "major"). If you have doubts about the word major you need to read the line above the guideline. The word major is used before an award such as Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis. That implies a major competition can never be a competition like Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Voice Hunt. Also, Sa Re Ga Ma Pa is notable as a tv reality show. Not as a music competition or an award. Most importantly, GNG trumps any SNG. NMUSIC says conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. I never said IANS cannot be independent. You haven't even read the two articles. Please see WP:SYNDICATED. Both of them need to be counted as one source only. You also did not note that they fail GNG because aren't sigcov. Those articles just have 1 para when you exclude direct quotations. The Hans is unreliable according to me. You can disagree, that's fine. I think you need to reassess your flawed !vote. - hako9 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Your attitude is disappointing. The Hans India needs to be determined by more than one editor, a paragraph can be significant coverage if it contains usable facts, and she has contributed a theme song to a notable television series as well as songs to other notable series so passes criteria 10 of WP:NMUSIC and winning a television reality singing competition is significant. According to Wikipedia Sa Re Ga Ma Pa is "the oldest running singing reality show in India" running since 1995, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sa Re Ga Ma Pa is a reality tv show. It has a dozen spinoffs like Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Ek Main Aur Ek Tu, Sa Re Ga Ma Pa L'il Champs. Winning these reality tv shows is like winning a plush toy in a circus game. It is not a "major award or a major competition" as per NMUSIC. In any case if that's her claim to fame, it qualifies for WP:BLP1E. I'll mention again, GNG trumps any SNG. I did my WP:BEFORE prior to nominating. Bottomline is there aren't sources to establish significant coverage. - hako9 (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tenuous arguments. There is no claim to fame here. Almost completely non-notable. The competition aren't that special now. There is so many of them. Fails WP:SIGCOV as well. Where is the social media?? There is nothing there. scope_creep^Talk 10:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SINGER. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: "Sa Re Ga Ma Pa" cannot be called a "major music competition" (distinguish from being a notable TV show). Though I would disagree with Hako9's classification of Hans India as unrelaible. For the purposes of WP:SINGER ("online versions of print media"), it would qualify as reliable source. However, given the trivial mention, its overall contribution to GNG is nil. Even if we consider SYNICATED sources as one GNG source, the article would not cut notability guidelines. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:52, 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) 00:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Freedom Press Books[edit]

List of Freedom Press Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am baffled by the existence of this list, which I think fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:LISTN. It does not aid in navigation, because a fair number of the books do not have WP entries. It is unsourced. And all relevant information about the publisher can be found and included at Freedom Press. Wikipedia is not a mirror of Worldcat—and this is actually substantially less useful than a library catalog entry. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is unsourced." I find that claim baffling, when made regarding a list of books. The rest of the nomination seems fairly on point so I have no comment on other issues. postdlf (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right; struck that bit. Though I suppose one might have sourcing questions with books from the pre-ISBN era, where connecting a book to its publisher is less straightforward. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't belong on WP.Balle010 (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pretty clear WP:NOTCATALOG. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 08:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added brackets for a few names and titles to check for notability. Some of the books are notable. It seems like a lot of research went into this article so wanted to add a note of hesitation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with Nom. Since this is covered by WorldCat, there's no reason to have it in Wikipedia. Also WP:WWIN. Normal Op (talk) 19:27, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnos Entertainment[edit]

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

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

Unsourced since 2006. It is occasionally mentioned in articles on titles that it worked on, often with a footnote that says: "Additional work by Hypnos Entertainment". That work is typically porting a title to another platform. Vexations (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 01:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Balle010 (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 15:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Company exists but the best I found was one sentence (not 100% sure due to bad snippet) in [7]: "Improvements abound. beginning with Hypnos Entertainment's spectacular new graphics engine. " As such, it fails WP:NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Corrado[edit]

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

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

Unclear how this passes notability criteria: the subject interned at the White House and has a few local mentions for covering his trip from Italy to the U.S. Reads like a CV. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Like a CV. Fails notability. Balle010 (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don’t believe the article meets WP:BIO, considering the subject is only noteworthy because of being mentioned on a few news channels. Lucas.Wy (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being an intern in the campaign organization of a candidate for US president in not a sign of notability, nor are any of the other things listed about him. Beinging briefly quoted in a newspaper on any issue is also not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Falls super short of WP:NPOL and fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:02, 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) 00:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Munzali Dantata[edit]

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

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

The article doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines and is not well-referenced. As it stands, it is also somewhat confusing. (What is an "acknowledged tourism enthusiast and activist"?) Noahfgodard (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reads like a resume. Non-notable subject with passing mentions in media. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Large unverified claims with no inline citations. The only possibly noteworthy thing is the position he held as Director General for the National Institute for Hospitality and Tourism of Nigeria (don't know if that's an official government position). But it's iffy anyways and can't establish notability on its own. - hako9 (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not establish notability. Balle010 (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC) Delete claims are not at all verifiable, also not a notable person to be on Wikipedia.Iitianeditor (talk) 16:40, 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 04:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Wesley[edit]

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

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

Despite a relatively long career behind the scenes, little reliable and significant information can be found about this singer. Note that the items listed in the article's Discography section, despite being in italics, are actually singles, and over the years she only released four singles of her own and guested on two singles by other people. Otherwise she appears to be mostly a session singer. The article's attempted Google Books citation points to a book page in which she was merely listed as being present at someone else's session. Otherwise she can only be found at typical retail, streaming, and lyrics sites for the few songs in her own name, with no pro reviews or other analysis to qualify for notability as a musician. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No effective coverage. Lots of passing mentions on Gbooks. Fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable singer, does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 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 04:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legae Academy[edit]

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

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

The article only has references to primary sources and a dead link. Plus, when I did a WP:BEFORE about it I was unable to find the multiple in-depth reliable secondary sources the subject would need to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. As an alternative to deletion the article could be merged or redirected to the article for the city where it's located, Gaborone. That seems to be the preferred thing to do with articles about non-notable schools. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added a reference to a thesis which discussed the school. There are some references in school directories, though I'm not sure how reliable these are and whether inclusion is paid. But my main argument for keeping is that this is a secondary school, it exists, and therefore this from WP:WPSCH/AG applies: "In practice articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept, as they are almost always found to be notable, unless their existence cannot be verified in order to stop hoaxes". (I do realise this is a bit of a circular argument.) The article does need work to remove some unsourced trivia (I've taken the bit about the library competitions out). Tacyarg (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thesis' don't really count for establishing notability. Also, like I said in my nomination the current precedent for high/secondary schools that can be proven to exist but still fail WP:GNG or WP:NORG, which so far this one seems to, is to merge or redirect it either the school districts article or the one for the town where it's located. Since a thesis that mentions it exists definitely isn't enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. So, sans anything that does pass either I still think a merge/redirect is the best option. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:NSCHOOL / WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV. Sources in article are either unidentifiable dead links, primary or statistics. WP:WPSCH/AG is an essay and is contradicted by February 2017 RFC.   // Timothy :: talk  12:07, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sui gas field[edit]

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

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

Stumbled on this article as needing clean-up. Discovered that nearly the entire article had been copy pasted from an external site. Relevance of said text was also unclear. Upon further review I'm not sure this article meets notability or significance. It might be the largest natural gas reserve in Pakistan, but that's about it. Nothing significant or notable about it in any other domain. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What page is it copied from? The Earwig cooyvio tool isn’t finding it. Mccapra (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-cleanup nearly the entirety of the Production section was copied from here. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although the article is in bad shape, the subject itself notable enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Beagel (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the very first source found by clicking in the word "books" above, plus many others. And I don't understand what "other domain" the nominator is looking for. This is a gas field, not a cricketer or a film or anything else. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This gas field is recognized by petroleum geologists as a giant gas field having over 5 trillion cubic feet of proven gas reserves in Eocene carbonates. There are a number of papers about it that can be found by digging in the geologic literature, e.g. AAPG Bulletin. Paul H. (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional Comment The current estimated reserves is not over 5 trillion cubic feet (a 1959 estimate). It is actually 10 to 11 trillion cubic feet. This makes it a monster of a supergiant gas field and quite economically significant and noteworthy beyond any doubt. Paul H. (talk) 13:58, 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 no consensus. On the surface, there is no agreement about whether the subject meets WP:SOLDIER or not. But, the deeper problem is that (as is almost always the case), nobody can agree what "presume" means. And, no wonder, that. I just went and read WP:PRESUME hoping it would give me clarity about how to sort this out. I have no clue what WP:PRESUME is trying to say. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out to me that, "there is no agreement about whether the subject meets WP:SOLDIER" is overstating things. There was one statement, Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER or really even WP:1E, but that was a minority opinion. The gist, however, is that whether it meets SOLDIER or not, there's no agreement here if that's enough, i.e. the whole question about what "presume" means, and how SNGs interact with GNG. That's the important thing that led to this being closed No Consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilal Ahmed Rather[edit]

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

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, is WP:1E   // Timothy :: talk  04:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete while in India Air commodore rank satisfies #2 of WP:SOLDIER, that is just a presumption of notability and I don't that see WP:GNG is satisfied as the only notability seems to be the trivial WP:1E of being the first Indian Air Force pilot to fly a Rafale which in itself is not notable. We don't have pages for first X nationality to fly Y aircraft and shouldn't start doing so. Mztourist (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also the supposed point of notability has been fact-checked by India Today and found wanting [8]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the first Indian pilot to fly a particular type of plane is not even remotely close to a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Air commodores are notable per WP:SOLDIER #1 #2. That's why he's notable, not for flying a particular type of plane. This has been completely unaddressed by the nom and two of the above posters. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply This is an essay. It is a recommendation based on opinions intended to help editors evaluate notability in a subject area. This recommendation in no way means notabiity is automatically established and must be assumed. If the individual is actually notable it should be easy to produce multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject to show they meet WP:GNG and are not a WP:1E.   // Timothy :: talk  16:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SOLDIER is a presumption of notability, if the person doesn't actually have "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" then they still fail WP:GNG despite their rank, medal etc. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It is an essay that is almost always followed in AfD discussions. There is heavy precedent for keeping, as I cannot recall an officer of this rank being deleted at AfD. The article is now well sourced. This is very clearly not a WP:1E issue given his career, so any arguments that it is are disingenuous. No, he isn't notable for being the first to fly a particular type of plane; he certainly is for reaching the rank of air commodore. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• He is also notable for being India's air attaché in Paris for the last four years and actually organising the supply of the Rafale to India. There is plenty of sourcing for this. Strange how all this has been ignored in these allegations that this is a WP:1E. I would say that WP:BEFORE has certainly not been adhered to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So, to summarise, an air officer who meets the criteria of WP:SOLDIER #2, who has held a notable appointment, who has been responsible for a major equipment overhaul in a major service of a major country and whose career is well-covered in the media and well-sourced in his article. But that still doesn't, apparently, meet WP:GNG! Yes, it does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the media sourcing is low quality, reads like poorly written fancruft and so does not satisfy WP:RS. The Greater Kashmir and News18 stories seem to be the same, containing this ridiculous statement: "The career details of this officer of the Indian Air Force (IAF) read like the decoration scroll of the best flying officer anywhere in the world." User:Peacemaker67 has already pointed out that claims that he flew the first Rafale from France to India, which is repeated in most of the news sources, is not correct and most of the stories appear to confuse him being the first Indian to fly a Rafale with him flying the Rafale from France to India. Given these deficiencies I don't see that we can trust anything in these stories other than his basic biography and rank progression, so I dispute that it is well-sourced.Mztourist (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In this context WP:RSCONTEXT, The Gazette of India does not meet WP:RS because it is not independent of the topic, it is a government publication. The other sources listed are WP:ROUTINE coverage of one event (the procurement of 5 aircraft), which does not meet WP:NEVENT or WP:SUSTAINED. It is not notable to be an "air attaché". Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER or really even WP:1E. WP:BEFORE has clearly been done very well.

re: the comment "so any arguments that it is are disingenuous" is an inappropriate aspersion that others here are acting in bad faith. It would be advisable for this comment to be struck.   // Timothy :: talk  11:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly, given the facts that he is an air commodore and holds a senior post have been completely ignored in the nomination, which merely alleges it is WP:1E, which is clearly not true. Two of the comments then just went along with the nomination, also without mentioning his rank or post. I'm not assuming bad faith; I'm assuming that WP:BEFORE was not carried out fully and that the nomination was based on the non-notable fact that he was the first person from a particular country to fly a particular type of aircraft. Since it has since been made clear that this is not the reason for his notability, I'm mystified as to why WP:1E is still being touted as a reason for deletion. Incidentally, a government publication most certainly is a WP:RS for the career of a government employee. Not to establish notability maybe, but as a source for facts certainly. As to the the comment that Most of the media sourcing is low quality, reads like poorly written fancruft and so does not satisfy WP:RS, most of it is very similar to the article from the Times of India. If that isn't a reliable source for Indian affairs then I don't know what is. I think what you read as poorly written fancruft is just the way many Indian journalists write; it's a cultural difference. That doesn't make it unreliable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This, I think, proves that we pretty much have a consensus. And consensus matters at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: WP:OTHER stuff exists is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Those other articles had evidence of WP:N.   // Timothy :: talk  21:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, but consensus is. Consensus is how we do things on Wikipedia, and clear consensus here is to keep such articles. Have you read all of them then? You clearly haven't read even a fraction of them, because if you had, you'd find that many of them were kept solely because of their rank. Many were in fact not as well sourced as this article. Verifiable proof of their holding the rank was all that was required for them to be kept. As I said, consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Then they were decided incorrectly because just holding a rank is only a presumption of notability, they must have "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder why you think we have AfDs? If everything was decided by simple application of set-in-stone rules then we wouldn't need them at all. GNG is a guideline. It isn't set in stone. And other subject-specific notability guidelines, including WP:SOLDIER (which is considered to be a valid guideline despite its status as an essay, which is why it is linked at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and why WP:AFDOUTCOMES says what it says about military personnel), are often considered to be more important. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. To quote from WP:SOLDIER, re personnel of his rank: If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article. Certainly applies here. I would also note that, despite "only" being an essay, WP:SOLDIER is listed on Wikipedia:Notability (people) under the header note: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. It is therefore clear that, despite the comments above that he does not, Rather rather easily meets our criteria for inclusion. I would also reiterate that two of the "delete" !votes completely ignore the fact that he is an air commodore and only focus on the non-notable fact that he may have been the first IAF pilot to fly a particular aircraft. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Response once again you are ignoring that WP:SOLDIER states that holding a rank is only a presumption of notability, they must have "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" to meet WP:GNG and he doesn't by any measure satisfy that. Mztourist (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You obviously didn't fully read what I wrote above: If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am familiar with all of WP:SOLDIER and my earlier comment stands he lacks "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources". Mztourist (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As am I and as do mine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Necrothesp, perhaps you can explain to everyone what "then they most likely" means in the above quote? I'm sure Mztourist and the closer would be interested as well.

I'd also be interested (as I'm sure would others and the closer) as to which independent, secondary sources you believe contain non-trivial details about his personal life, education and military career, beyond the WP:1E about being the first person from a particular country to fly an already tested and deployed aircraft, and the mention of his rank, which does not detail his military career, it just notes his rank).   // Timothy :: talk  22:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see anyone disputing that the subject meets NSOLDIER. NSOLDIER continues to be a valid SNG for AFD purposes. I am open to revisiting notability guidelines or guides or rules or whatever, but not in AFDs themselves. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: In the above comments, three editors have disputed NSOLDIER. WP:NSOLDIER says "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify". They are presumed notable, but a presumption is not a gaurantee of notability. It goes on to state, "will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify" - almost always" is the key; in this case he does not have sufficient coverage to quality. WP:SIGCOV states that "significant coverage" must detail the subject directly and in depth and the sources much be WP:IS indepedent of the subject, so in this case government and military publications are not independent of the subject.

Unlike some guidelines that need more clarity, NSOLDIER doesn't need to be revisited because it makes it clear that this is a presumption, which is not a guarantee and that they will almost always meet, which clearly means some subjects will not.

What matters here is: does the subject have significant direct and indepth coverage WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent WP:IS reliable sources WP:RS. The nomination sets forth that the subject does not meet this and no one has provided evidence to the refute this.   // Timothy :: talk  16:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All SNGs (except WP:NPOL AFAIK) are a fallback to presumption, because otherwise we would not need SNGs at all. By the same token, all SNGs should rightly say that subjects meeting SNGs may not always meet GNG and therefore one should be careful about creating a bunch of articles on some weak SNG claim alone. That's for creating. Once someone's decided to create one based on the presumption, one possible way to make a case for failure of GNG despite meeting some SNG, in my view, is to show that the person is unlikely to ever meet GNG by virtue of (1) not currently having enough coverage (reasonably conclusively showing that all the coverage that there is, online and offline, has been exhaustively collated and GNG isn't still met; not the case here as the subject is from an area which isn't exhaustively studied, nor covered well enough on the internet, and not really the best time for digging up library archives) && (2) being unable to do anything eliciting further coverage (eg. by being long dead; not the case here) or being unlikely to elicit further coverage. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Air commodore passes SOLDIER and he probably will have more coverage in the future. Non-English or off-line sources may also exist in addition to the recent coverage in English. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: While I strongly disagree with how expansive SOLDIER is (someone in the business world who supervises as few as 500 employees is what they call a "middle manager," and sure as hell not presumptively notable), it's the SNG on the ground. SNG being subordinate to the GNG, which the subject just does not pass. Suggestions that he "probably will have more coverage in the future" violates WP:CRYSTAL, and it just doesn't cut it to suggest that there must be non-English sources out there, when we're dealing with an officer in the military of the country with the world's largest English-language media. Beyond that, black-letter policy requires not that sources may exist, when challenged, but that editors wishing to keep an article prove that they do. That burden of proof has not been met. Ravenswing 10:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Traditionally a brigadier commands a brigade (the clue being in the title), which consists of 2,000 or more personnel, not 500. That (or its equivalents) is the lowest rank covered by WP:SOLDIER. They are certainly not middle managers (the equivalent there would probably be captains and majors, who are nowhere near senior enough to be covered by the guideline). So I fail to see how your argument against WP:SOLDIER is accurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets our guidelines for WP:SOLDIER#2 the subject is notable. Wm335td (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wm335td, WP:NSOLDIER is not a guideline, it is an essay; it is an opinion. What WP:SIGCOV does this have to show notability?   // Timothy :: talk  19:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a widely-accepted standard so entrenched that it is listed at Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I really wish people would look up the word "presumption" in a dictionary and start presuming, rather than doing the opposite. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Uncontested pass of WP:NSOLDIER #2. There is no indication that NSOLDIER isn't an accurate indicator of GNG. There is strong precedents for keeping such articles (WP:Some stuff exists for a reason) per User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for flag, general and air officers. – SD0001 (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for closer: Since this will be a controversial close regardless of how it ends up, could you let us know how you weighted the sources for notability and independence and how you believe guidelines vs essays impacted the decision. Thank you.   // Timothy :: talk  05:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:SOLDIER#2.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see WP:GNG mentioned. WP:GNG is a presumption of notability - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." (my emphasis). There are other routes to a presumption of notability, WP:SOLDIER is relevant here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for that. There's too much made of other routes to notability being "only presumptions" and so ignored, but the WP:GNG being "real" notability that is somehow one of the founding principles of Wikipedia, rather than just another guideline that was developed some years after Wikipedia started. I must repeat my plea for people to start presuming notability rather than presuming non-notability when anything using the word "presumption" is cited. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 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 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BIS conference[edit]

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

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

I'm unsure if there are any specific notability guidelines for academic conferences, but I am unable to find any independent coverage of this one which would indicate that WP:GNG is met. The article creator appears to have a major conflict of interest: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Older_/_broader_COI_issues SmartSE (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm unable to make a strong case for or against deleting this but, despite suspected COI, there don't appear to be any serious WP:NPOV issues in this short article. ~Kvng (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: I wasn't suggesting that was a reason for deletion, more a reason for it to be created in the first place, rather than because it is a particularly well known conference. SmartSE (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse, we don't delete articles on notable topics just because they were created by COI editors. There are likely a lot of better-known conferences without a Wikipedia article but that does not justify deleting this one. ~Kvng (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: Huh? I know and that's exactly what I said! The question is whether it meets GNG. SmartSE (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse, like you, I don't have much experience evaluating this beyond WP:EXISTS. So I haven't !voted. ~Kvng (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Significant copyvio from the conference website (their self-description from 2015 was added here in 2018). The content that wasn't lifted runs into the "Wikipedia is not a directory or catalogue" problem: basically all that's left is the list of annual meetings, and that's not an encyclopedia article. I have not turned up any substantial third-party coverage of the conferences in amidst the publications of things that had been presented there. That's not an atypical situation for conferences, book series, niche publishers, etc., but those subjects don't get a special exemption — it just means they face an uphill path to wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know if this article must be deleted or not! A scientific conference from 1997 by notable publisher (Springer) is interesting, but to have a Wikipedia article, the article topic must pass the WP:GNG. Charmk (talk) 13:38, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WWVS-LP[edit]

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

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

This station can't possibly have existed.

• The lone reference says, correctly, that the low-power television service in the US started in 1982, when this station allegedly broadcast from 1967 to 1970. They weren't assigning four-letter call signs to LPTVs until 1994.
• Further, the FCC does not allow normal broadcast stations to take call letters starting with "WWV" as those designations are reserved for the government.
• There are no references to a WWVS of this type in any Connecticut newspapers or in trade publications.

Raymie (t • c) 19:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 19:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 19:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This seems like more of an early local CATV channel than a physical broadcast television station. I could see it existing (and I'm sure the sources are very thin in more of a 'local curiosity' type of way), but only in that sense. Nate • (chatter) 22:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: When an article claims a station existed before its supposed form of broadcast service was established by the FCC (and not only did LPTV begin in 1982, but "-LP" suffixes weren't issued to any station prior to 1994 — prior to then, LPTVs used the same call sign format as stations in the translator service), that generally doesn't bode well for verifiability. I'd concur that, if it existed at all, this was a CATV channel (a station that seemingly only operated to show high school sports doesn't seem to be a realistic way to run an over-the-air station to me), though no channel number is mentioned in the article. (I'll note that not all "WWV*" call signs are forbidden to FCC-licensed broadcast stations; there are a number of them that are used on such stations, such as WWVA and WWVT. At least as of 2009, though, reserved for "standard frequency" stations were "WWV, WWVB through WWVI, WWVL, WWVS." Not sure what the limitations regarding the "WWV*" call sign block were in place during the late 1960s, but WWVS definitely seems to be off-limits to today's broadcasters, so "WWVS-LP" probably wouldn't be approved. Though this didn't stop WVBX from holding the call sign WWVB-FM for a year and a half in 2008–09…) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet WP:BROADCAST or WP:GNG. This seems like a very serious hobbyist found a great way to have fun and support the local high school for a few years.   // Timothy :: talk  12:27, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent Systems[edit]

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

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

The company's digital marketing team members are directly involved in editing this page. The user Pritamgandhi happens to be on the company payroll who did unreferenced edits to showcase recent developments such as the resignation of their CEO. (Redacted). This page is nothing but a promotional activity for this entity (WP:PROMO). Please do note, this wiki page is active since 2004, without having any encyclopedic value. The company may be listed on the stock market but that doesn't prove notability (WP:GNG, WP:NCORP). Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. -Hatchens (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. It was difficult finding sources because the term "Persistent Systems" is used by academic writers in completely different contexts. This caused lots of results in Google Scholar and JSTOR, but none that met WP:SIRS. When I did a Google News search, I only found press releases (which are not independent), and what WP:CORPDEPTH deems "trivial coverage" like the resignation of a CEO for unspecified reasons and stock price information. There might be WP:RS concerning their work with the US Army, but I was not able to find independent or significant coverage. Z1720 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the sources listed above, I have decided to stay with my !delete vote. WP:CORPDEPTH says "Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs." Regarding the CEO resignation, I agree with a commentator that it "was kinda a big deal" but none of the sources say why it was significant. Until that happens, I will consider it "the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel," which is listed as trivial coverage in WP:CORPDEPTH.

Regarding routine business coverage, I considered if the sources were describing "expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business" (deemed trivial in WP:CORPDEPTH) or "ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization," (deemed significant in WP:CORPDEPTH.) In my opinion, these sources are trivial because they do not describe what is significant about the CEO leaving. I would change my vote if sources state a significant reason or impact on leaving the company.

Regarding the interviews, I don't see how these talk about Persistent Systems. The first one is under a paywall, but the second interview is more about IBM's Watson and the third doesn't give any specifics or facts about how the company was created or expanded. Regarding the 10K employees and long history, these facts do not establish notability on their own. Instead, these facts are the basis for reliable sources to cover this topic, thus fulfiling our notability requirement. Without this middle step, we cannot establish notability. I will regretfully remain with a delete vote until a reliable source gives information that fulfils significant coverage defined by WP:CORPDEPTH. Z1720 (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: (Without prejudice to blocking any COI editor and strong emphasis to keep the advert tag on the article, as is). Keep because - Listed company with an M-cap of ₹7,547 crore (US$950 million) and approx 10k employees. Nominator is right that there is no inherent notability for such listed companies as per WP:LISTED. But the claim of nominator, this wiki page is active since 2004, without having any encyclopedic value disregards all the !votes made by editors of the previous afds and keep close by the closing admin. Coming to this afd, the CEO resignation was kinda a big deal covered by reliable sources in India - [9], [10], [11]. Anyways, I'd classify the sources cited/found as follows,

Routine business coverage, but they include some independent commentary and analysis- [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]

Interviews with Management with some independent comments/analysis , [19], [20], [21] - (Last one is cited as press release but in my opinion its not. It's kind of a longish interview with the founder with some independent commentary in the lead).

They also keep getting tonnes of trivial coverage like [22], [23], too many to list here.

In most of the sources the quotes by the management (not independent) are easily distinguishable from the rest of the independent content. Imo, on a combined basis, there is sigcov for a keep. - hako9 (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hako9, out of all the media mentions/citations which you stated - only two of the sources pass borderline reliability; BloombergQuint and The Hindu Business Line - as per WP:RSPSOURCES. Why borderline pass? because, both the sources are the sister publications of Bloomberg and The Hindu (which are the only Reliable Sources included in the list). And, if we delve a little bit more, all the news article links (which you have shared) lack neutrality factor because most of them are speaking about the company's success related to certain events or mergers/acquisitions. Due diligence is required. Hatchens (talk) 04:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchens, Economic Times, Money Control and Livemint are reliable too, even though they are not listed in WP:RSPSOURCES. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie, That's your assumption. If these sources are not discussed or included in the list (based on consensus), then we cannot simply assume your point of view. However, even if we go ahead with your assumption, these links may help in terms of WP:VERIFY but from another angle, they are actually violating WP:NPOV. Please do note, These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. Hatchens (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarize yourself with WP:RSPMISSING. Start a discussion on The Economic Times, Quint and Business Line at RSN if you want to find where they land. Due diligence is required. Yes. You need to diligently read the sources. - hako9 (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hako9, Thank you for the suggestion, and indeed the interpretation of sources can go both ways. As per WP:RSPMISSING - A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. But, if the entity is notable, then I believe it might have some references coming from this WP:RSPSOURCES list or from Google Scholar or JSTOR. But, this is not the case. Besides that, the whole article is like a WP:STUB which never had any expansion in the last 16 years because it has no encyclopedic value in the first place. Let's not digress from this AfD discussion and try to derive a consensus. Hatchens (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchens, lack of expansion does not imply failing of WP:GNG. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie, You can keep going on picking up my statements and make your assumptions. It's a free world. But, in the end, I will advocate for the actual acceptance, which should be, derived from general consensus supported by Wikipedia guidelines (holistically speaking). That's the primary objective of all AfDs. Hatchens (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop tagging me and stop wasting my time. - hako9 (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hako9, I guess we are discussing?, with civility. I'm sorry if I have caused any inconvenience. From, now onwards, will not tag. Regards. Hatchens (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly a notable topic. But, leave targeted guidance for resolving COI, and other quality issues. No reason to not have them be resolved when the page is active. Recommend reaching out to appropriate project group if needed for SME assists. Ktin (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Hako9 and Ktin. Topic is clearly notable. The company has 10k+ employees. Issues can always be (and must be) resolved through some cleanup. There are a lot of sources available, as we can see in this discussion. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have checked the references. I used to write press releases so I can smell one a mile away and I have seen nothing but press releases and regurgitated PR material. The is WP:ADMASQ and needs to go. Fiddle Faddle 11:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Special Note - SerChevalerie has deregistered itself from Wikipedia without putting a redirect, For more details, click here and also check link. -Hatchens (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: References are promotional, article appears to be editied by employees. Whiteguru (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as noted in WP:LISTED, "Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above.". With 10k employees and a long history (founded 1990), this is one of those cases. Which is prolly also why it's the third nom (WP:STICK). II | (t - c) 12:24, 18 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 Angelo Falcón. The one "keep" doesn't address the sourcing problems. Sandstein 10:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute for Latino Policy[edit]

National Institute for Latino Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non-notable org. Very little in terms of coverage. Therapyisgood (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep: page is a good example of the history of immigration of Latinos and vulnerable peoples in New York City. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Angelo Falcón. I'm not seeing anywhere close to what's needed by WP:NORG. The one source in the article is Falcón's obituary (and, in fact, is also the only source in our article about him). The Institute doesn't appear to have any notability separate from it's founder; the NY Times obit describes it as, "a one-man operation run out of his Brooklyn apartment". -- RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 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 keep. Weak keep is still a keep Tone 04:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Sarll[edit]

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

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

This article is about a "larger than life" character sourced primarily from a book. Using an offline source is of course OK, provided that source is reliable. The problem is that the story contains multiple implausible claims, Being born a 3 foot long baby, catching 25 foot long alligators and 35 foot long pythons, and those are just the ones I knew would be improbable world records if true. It is possible that the book was properly researched and set out which stories the author was able to verify and which were tall tales revolving around or from the subject, if so a rewrite by someone with access to that book would be in order. But if the book recounts those tales uncritically then we can't treat it as a reliable source, and therefore we may not have sufficient reliable sourcing available for an article. ϢereSpielChequers 10:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting to "weak Keep" as some of the less plausible claims have been retracted or attributed per closer perusal of the source. ϢereSpielChequers 15:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I think being featured on This Is Your Life is enough to establish notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I found a few paragraphs in a 1993 issue of Sight and Sound: "In Time of War", an article about wartime filming. I also found a short article from March 1961, "Adventurer Deluxe", in The Windsor Star. Not a lot, but it could be something to build on. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I'd very much like to keep an article which features a photo of the subject "Hypnotising an Alligator"(!), but I'm not sure that WP:BIO is met. The Australian media of this era is a decent proxy of the British media, but searching the National Library of Australia's very wide ranging Trove newspaper archives finds only two stories for Thomas Sarll (syndicated across multiple papers) [24] and only an ad for "Tiger Sarll" [25]. If there are equivalent British resources they'd be well worth checking. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think if he was notable enough to feature on This Is Your Life and have a biography written about him then he's notable enough for us. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  But if that "biography" repeats a bunch of improbable tall tales, should it be treated as a reliable source, or are we basically legitimising someone else's hoax? ϢereSpielChequers 10:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep featured on This Is Your Life He gets some passing mentions in major media also, like the BBCWm335td (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and I don't believe that appearing on This Is Your Life is sufficient to pass WP:GNG, rather this is an example of early pop culture. Mztourist (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But he was obviously not just a nobody if he was selected. It's hardly the same thing as being a contestant on a reality show, given only one person was selected for every weekly show and they were generally people who were well-known in the media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that is more significant than being a one-hit wonder (which you object to so much) how exactly? Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't object to one-hit wonders having articles at all. I object to one-hit wonders having articles but people who are genuinely notable not having them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See these two articles, one of which has a short biography, complete with reptile hypnosis: Bottomore, Stephen. "Introduction: The Cambrian Cinema." Film History, vol. 10, no. 1, 1998, p. 3 and eadem "In time of war." Sight and Sound, vol. 3, no. 9, Sep 01, 1993, pp. 30-33.

• Keep I have a copy of the book that the article is largely referenced from, I can confirm that the claims mentioned above and in the article are present in the text. Very happy to privately share images of the text if need be. Also the Article's kindly provided by Nick-D add further credibility and notariety to the article. I have also found Sarll regerstered in the following RAF lists backing up the claims later in the article about his wartime history. [26] SALVAHOUSE (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think anyone disputes that the book exists, but can we treat that book as a reliable source? If it simply repeats claims about 25 foot alligators, 35 foot pythons and 3 foot babies, then I don't see how we could trust the rest of the book. However if the book differentiates between things that the writer was able to verify, and treats the more improbable claims as merely claims that exceed anything in the Guinness book of records knows of, then yes it could be treated as a reliable source. If the book isn't reliable then all we have is an officer and film cameraman who doesn't approach notability either for his military career or his film career. ϢereSpielChequers 23:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just Looking through the book now to see how its phrased, as you are right, if the book takes it as fact or sees it as claims is very important for the reliability of the source. So the 3ft Long claim is described " His sister, Rosa, who is four years his senior, remembers only that he was 3 feet long." - So obviously a child memory and not a fact. The Aligator claim is a typo "Tiger Hired four dugout canoes...which carried a number of long boxes with holes drilled in and a couple of handles on top. Some of the boxes measured as much as twenty-five feet long." - The box was 25ft not the alligator, Sarll was clearly ambitious but no record breaking aligators are mentioned. One way or another I have edited the article to reflect the communities concerns as far as possible. To add, this article [27] has a nice consice summary of sarlls life including photos of him with his plethora of medals and old images while he was a camera man for pathe SALVAHOUSE (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep the sources mentioned above combined make him borderline notable. I also found an article in the Essex Chronicle (on proquest, any wikipedia editor can get it through TWL) by the title of "Legacy of adventurer's global trips to go under the hammer: CASKET: Relic of ancient Egypt set to be auctioned" and some other coverage like this that seems just enough to pass GNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I think that there's enough coverage to be notable. Implausible claims should be removed from the article, or described as "Sarll claims that (x)." This can be handled through normal article editing. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:55, 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 no consensus. It might be worth discussing on the talk page whether this content is better framed as a broader article or section about race and gender in Conan the Barbarian. Sandstein 10:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bêlit[edit]

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

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

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. At best this can be redirected to the novellete she appeared in (Queen of the Black Coast) - there is next to no referenced (and non-pure plot) content to merge, anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 11 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} 06:19, 11 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} 06:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is not second nomination, but the article was moved into the namespace that another now deleted article now occupied... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is covered in sources such as Race and Popular Fantasy Literature and Conan Meets the Academy. Note that the name comes from ancient Mesopotamia and there's lots of scholarly discussion about it as a title used for various goddesses, So the previous nomination was erroneous too. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:IGNORINGATD; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anything in those sources that goes beyond mentions in passing of plot summaries. Can you quote what you found, if it is better than this? TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are the same sources referred to by Toughpigs below. Here's a quote for you

      ... it is the corrupt bias of the will that bribes and besots the understanding: none so blind as those that will not see.

      — Matthew Henry

• Weak delete I haven't been able to find more than passing mentions, so it doesn't seem like a properly encyclopedic article can be written at the moment. Conan Meets the Academy, for example, which seems like it ought to be a goldmine for substantial coverage of notable characters, never spends more than a paragraph on Belit, usually discusses her in conjunction with at least one other character, and the paragraph itself is always about some aspect of Conan which is merely illustrated by his relationship with Belit. It is no help for, for example, identifying basic facts about the origins and reception of the character. It seems like she is fairly important in-fiction -- this source calls her the one true love of Conan's life -- but at least in academic sources she does not seem to have attracted attention. I hesitate, though, since this is an older property and thus it's possible better sources exist only in print. Other places to look might be articles specifically on women in Conan, or perhaps "popular" sources like fantasy magazines, which sometimes publish various retrospectives or commentaries-- I could imagine someone writing about how this character was important to them. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 17:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Passing mentions do not equate to notability. Should print sources ever be uncovered, the topic should be explored first from the context of the main article anyway. TTN (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The sources are not passing mentions, and discuss the character in detail, including the gender and race implications of her portrayal. Conan Meets the Academy comments on her subservient gendered relationship with Conan, despite being a fierce warrior. Race and Popular Fantasy Literature has several pages on Belit's character (pg 48-50), discussing the racial coding of her characterization as an emancipator of Black slaves. The character is also discussed in The Robert E. Howard Guide (Skelos Press, 2018). I added references and quotes to the article from all three sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now those are much better sources, but I can access only the first one, where there is indeed a paragraph long discussion of her. How long are the sections in the other two books, and does the Guide go beyond a plot summary? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The section in Race and Popular Fantasy Literature goes on for a little over three pages, starting on page 48 and going to the top of page 51. The Robert E. Howard Guide discusses Belit for about a page. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be helpful if you could quote the page ranges. Re The Robert E. Howard Guide, do you refer to the text on pages 88-89 (accessible at Amazon at [28])? If so, the page is about the story she appears, in, through I'll grant that there seems about a paragraph-long content that is about her. For Race and Popular Fantasy Literature, I assume you mean the mentions on pages 48-51? Page 51 is not available for me, as for the others, those pages are not only about her, other characters are discussed there as well, interwoven with discussion of her. Geneerlously we could say she gets about two paragraphs on those pages, not counting some pure plot summary and quotations from books. Hmmmm. This is better than nothing, and certainly better than plot summaries that are the only thing often found for such characters. I checked again, however, and I can't find anything substantial in Google Scholar outside the sources already presented here. Hmmmm. If only there was as much as a section about her, not even a chapter, in a work somewhere... this is all really in the blurry zone between in-depth and passing, effectively few sentences in few sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did you see what I added to the article based on the Race and Popular Fantasy Literature source? The section analyzes Belit's role as a white woman in relationship to her "savage" black crew. This is real-world literary criticism that goes beyond plot description. It is certainly not a passing mention. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I said, you found some good sources, I am however still not sure if this is sufficient. I am considering withdrawing this nom, but a bit more in sources would help. The mentions are paragraph long, which is better than in-passing sentence or two, but still, it is just a paragraph here or there. That's, for me, is borderline. But if others think this is sufficient, maybe it is for the best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am swayed by the sources uncovered here. The article doesn't need to be long, but it seems that meeting the minimums of WP:GNG is done. I have no concern over short Stub- or Start-class articles. As a character that has also now starred in her own comic book series, if a reader were to look up the character to discern interest, a standalone article would probably better serve them than sifting through extraneous information about the rest of the original work . There may be some character-specific discussion in those 16 reviews, but I don't think searching them for content that is probably not better than what has already been presented is necessary. -2pou (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Reading through the comments, I think fellow editors identified support for notability; I think this one is a keeper.GizzyCatBella🍁 07:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete or merge - after a review of the sources raised in this discussion. This book has a few passing mentions about the character's name during the racial implications of one of the Conan storylines, which is really more of a critique of race and racism in the Conan series at large. The mentions are not particularly on topic or substantial enough to establish notability for the character, but it's enough to add more critical reception to the Conan series or universe. Jontesta (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case. Race and Popular Fantasy Literature spends several pages (pg 48-50) talking specifically about Belit's role as the white savior of a crew of "savage" Black people. If you look at the article, you can see how I used this and other sources to build up non-trivial coverage of the topic. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TTN. WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS do not equate to notability, and there are no sources that address this subject directly and in detail, as per the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or delete there are sources that are right on the edge of meeting the general notability guideline. The race/gender politics of Conan are worth an article (or at least a section) somewhere, but the articles found don't really establish notability of this character. There's a way to cover this, but worst case, take the sources about race/gender and summarize them more accurately at some other Conan article. Archrogue (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While a Gscholar search on simply "Belit" produces an absurd number of results (overwhelmingly OCR'd variations on belit-tle), targeted searches (like "Conan Belit" and "Howard Belit" produce very manageable sets with plausible sources, many non-English. "Fandom and the Nostalgia of Masculinity"; “'Barbarian Heroing' and Its Parody"; "'Death to the Masters!': The Role of Slave Revolt in the Fiction of Robert E. Howard"; "Beefy Guys and Brawny Dolls"; "Heroes in the Wind"; "The Dark Man Men, Part Three" -- these may not, individually, be sufficient, but collectively these and many other articles provide more than enough commentary to establish notability, even without looking at the nonEnglish articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Which of those sources address Belit, rather than general gender in the series? czar 02:03, 7 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. Ping me if content needs to be checked for merging. Tone 19:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of the Human Torch[edit]

Alternative versions of the Human Torch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnecessary article split that goes into too much detail about in-universe details and fails to justify its existence through reliable sources needed to pass WP:GNG. I don't even know if it's possible to establish independent notability for such a split because any sources, should they even exist, would likely be weighted towards one particular interpretation or another rather than the whole grouping. This should be maybe a paragraph in the main article at best, but I don't think any existing content is worthy of being merged. It should be started from scratch. TTN (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge a basic summary to Human Torch. BOZ (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge if anyone thinks there is referenced content to be rescued. The entire Category:Alternative versions of comics characters likely needs depopulating. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Arrticle seems like all WP:OR   // Timothy :: talk  13:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge as a compromise. The main character article is still well within WP:SIZE recommendations, and this spinout is both short and non-WP:NOTABLE. There's no sense in spinning out sections that are only sourced to primary sources, when policy is to shorten and summarize, according to WP:PLOT and WP:DUE. If several sections of the main article grow with some third party sources for context, those might eventually be candidates for spin-outs that would meet the WP:GNG. But not yet. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:07, 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 keep. Although several "keep" opinions apear questionable, nobody except for the nominator supports deletion. Sandstein 10:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Pinchas Lubinsky[edit]

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

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

I almost passed it but the sources gave me the pause - with such unclear sources, this could be a hoax. Now, I don't think it is, but while looking for the sources, no English sources seem to discuss him outside a few websites that don't look very reliable. If there are mentions on books, they are inaccessible to me, and Google Scholar and News have nothing. Now, there may be something in Hebrew or Yddish, but the he wiki article was also recently created by the same relatively new account, and the clincher is, the subject seems to fail WP:ANYBIO and Wikipedia:Notability (priests) which says "The Chief Rabbis of nation states with large Jewish communities are notable by virtue of their status." Well, he was chief rabbi of a city, and overall I am afraid this reads like a WP:OBIT of a non-notable priest. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 19 August newspaper articled 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment - Please note that many of the references are from Hamodia newspaper that has a circulation of 160,000 according to Business Insider (see: here)--Steamboat2020 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The name is commonly spelt Lubinski as here, for example. Maybe the title needs work but deletion would be premature when we haven't even got the name variants clear yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right that the -i variant of his name seems to be more popular (assuming we are talking about the same person). But I reviewed the sources for the -i variant right now and sadly I don't see anything to work with, either. But by all means, if we can find some good sources and salvage it, it would be good for everyone. But if the current biography is comprehensive, than the likely problem is that he just did not do anything notable in his life... Not all rabbis are notable, per cited guidelines, and this so far appears to be the case here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus & AleatoryPonderings #1) The man spelled his name "Lubinsky" as opposed to "Lubinski", so I used his spelling. #2) You will see that I used "Zichron Chaim Pinchas, 1986 Brooklyn NY" as reference numerous times throughout the article. "Zichron Chaim Pinchas" was a book published by Rabbi Lubinsky's family on the first anniversary of his death. It is mostly in hebrew and yiddish, however, in the back of the book they published a collection of 9 newspaper articles (some in English) that were written about Rabbi Lubinsky. Unfortunately, they didn't indicate which newspapers these clippings were taken from so I could not quote the initial source as reference. Regardless, it certainly isn't a "hoax". In general, in the immediate aftermath of the holocaust, there were tens of thousands of survivors in the area and the Jewish community in Hannover - at that time - was notable. I also don't think that English articles on the internet should be the litmus test of whether person is notable enough, when we are dealing with a "Polish" born person who was a notable Rabbi in "Germany" and was a member of a "Yiddish" speaking community --Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steamboat2020: Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable, but they still need to pass WP:RS. A book published (WP:SELFPUBLISHed?) by a family tends to run afoul of the WP:GNG requirement of indepdence of sources (see also WP:NOTOBITUARY). If it contains excerots from reliable newspapers, however, that can help. Have you tried looking at newspapers.com and such? You can get access to them through the WP:LIBRARY, IIRC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus: I didn't rely on anything the family wrote in that book. I did rely on the copies of 9 actual newspaper articles that they included in the addendum. Keep in mind, this was published in 1986 before everybody had computers. It would have been virtually impossible for the family to create real looking newspaper articles at that time. Unfortunately, newspapers from that time period that catered to the Orthodox Jewish community aren't on "newspapers.com"--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The book "Zichron Chaim Pinchos" was featured in a "book review" in a publication of Agudath Israel of America called "Dos Yiddishe Vort" (November-December Vol. XXXIII Issue 264 page 59) by Joseph Fridenson and it was considered a noteworthy publication. I therefore consider it to be a reliable reference.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can someone explain in more detail how this person meets WP:Notability (biographies), please? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: Hannover was one of the largest jewish communities in Europe in the aftermath of the Holocaust. During the holocaust 90% of Polish Jewry were killed (see:The Holocaust in Poland). The survivors had been unable to practice Jewish ritual in the concentration camps and upon liberation most of them didn't immediately just "snap back" to religious observance. Rabbi Lubinsky together with a handful of other Rabbis brought many of these holocaust survivors back "into the fold" and in a large part because of them there are today over 1.8 million Haredi Jews (see: Haredi Judaism). It's important not only to look at the persons activities, within the context of the time period they were performed in, but also look at how they impacted future generations. Rabbi Lubinsky played a vital role in rebuilding Haredi Judaism from ashes of the Holocaust and for that he is notable.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this great scholar and rebbe! Lubinski was a Polish Holocaust survivor and lost his wife at Stutthof. In the immediate aftermath of the war he was instrumental in rebuilding the spiritual life of Jewish Polish refugees who fled the pogroms in Poland to the Bergen-Belsen refugee camp in the British occupation zone. Much has been written on this great scholar: [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomed Tamid (talk • contribs) 09:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[38]: more on the spiritual greatness, mesirot of the rebbe. In 1944 he was a forced laborer in the HASAG camp in Częstochowa Poland. He organized the chasidim to keep Pesach, not eating chametz. They stored food in secret. They hid potatoes for the holiday, and furtively roasted them in an industrial oven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomed Tamid (talk • contribs) 10:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ping User:Sandstein: can you add whatever template(s) are customary used here to indicate we have a WP:SPA here, whose edits are limited to participation in this AfD? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Just because @Lomed Tamid is a new user whose edits are limited to this discussion doesn’t change the fact that the 10 books quoted are very helpful to this discussion.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Just to clarify: I agree that @Lomed Tamid seems to have some personal connection to Rabbi Lubinsky and the "keep" vote shouldn't carry any weight. However, the substance that this user provided to our discussion shouldn't just be ignored because the user happens to have a personal agenda--Steamboat2020 (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I reviewed the 10 books (in hebrew) cited above by @Lomed Tamid that speak about Rabbi Lubinsky at length. I believe 10 books (written by different authors covering many different subjects) in addition to the sources already provided as references in the article qualifies as "Significant coverage" and bestows "notability" (see: Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline) upon the subject. I could build the additional 10 books into the page and cite them as references. However, I don't want to waste anymore time working on a page that is nominated to be deleted. Once notability is established by an administrator then we can discuss improving the article. --Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide bibliographical information, page numbers, and quotes from those book, to demonstrate the sources are reliable and not in passing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • those 10 books largely discusses Rabbi Lubinsky’s leadership role during the Holocaust.
      • Book #1: Title: With My Close Ones, I Shall Be Sanctified. Author: Rabbi Joshua Eibschitz. Published in 2004 discusses Rabbi Lubinsky at length on pages 351-359

• • • • Book #2: Title: The Magnificence of Israel. Author: Aaron Swerski. Published in 1997 devotes several paragraphs discussing Rabbi Lubinsky on page 350.

• • • • Book #3: Title: God’s Sanctifiers. Author: Yechiel Granatstein. Published in 2006 devotes several paragraphs to discussing Rabbi Lubinsky on page 304

• • • • Book#4 Title: The Holocaust & It’s Survivors. Author: Gershon Greenberg - Bar-Ilan University. Published in 1994 devotes several paragraphs to discussing Rabbi Lubinsky on page 277

• • • • Book#5 Title: Tree of Our Forefathers . Author: Simkah Reiz . Published in 1993 discusses Rabbi Lubinsky at length on pages 85-87

• • • • Book#6 Title: With Holiness & Strength. Author: Rabbi Joshua Eibschitz. Published in 1993 devotes several paragraphs to discussing Rabbi Lubinsky on page 66

• • • • Book #7 Title: Holocaust Survivors in Germany. Author: Tsemach Tzamiron. Published in 1970 devotes several paragraphs to discussing Rabbi Lubinsky on pages 54-55

• • • • Book #8 Title: Glory & Strength . Author: Yechiel Granatstein. Published in 1986 devotes several paragraphs to discussing Rabbi Lubinsky on page 86

• • • • Book #9 Title: Greatness of Jews in The Concentration Camps. Author: Menashe Unger. Published in 1970 devotes several paragraphs to discussing Rabbi Lubinsky on page 224

• • • • Book #10 Title: Haggadah- Passover in Concentration Camp. Author: Gideon Rafael Ben Michael. Published in 2016 devotes several paragraphs to discussing Rabbi Lubinsky on page 32

--Steamboat2020 (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on WP:AGF and GNG. I can't verify Steamboat2020's sources because I can't read Hebrew, but Steamboat2020 has effectively met Piotrus' challenge to name and describe the Hebrew sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, per AGF, you are right. If we assume those books exist and are reliable (not self-published, etc.). I'd like to see their original names and/or links to worldcat. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Piotrus: The links to the books were already provided above by @Lomed-Tamid. As per your request, I provided the bibliographical information and page numbers in English from those book. I really, don't understand what more you want??--Steamboat2020 (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Steamboat2020: First, please note that what I am asking for is not required, as in, you don't have to do this, and the article may well be kept even if you ignore my request. But what I'd like to see (and if I see it I'd withdraw my deletion vote) would be at least two paragraphs, in English (so, translated quotes) that show that the subject has been discussed in-depth (and not in passing), plus commentary on why the sources being quoted from are reliable (i.e. not self-published or written by relatives or people with WP:COI). That would demonstrate the subject passes GNG/ANYBIO beyond any doubt. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • • • • • @PIOTRUS: _ Respectfully, I feel like you keep moving the goal post--Steamboat2020 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lubinski - notable Holocaust survivor. Steamboat2020 has found some reliable sources and presented them here. Wm335td (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- seems notable--Cts499m (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSNOTABLE. Account has <20 edits at the time of the vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • true, but I still can have an opinion on the matter--Cts499m (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course. Except given that per WP:DUCK you are not a new editor, but a returning one, one has to wonder whether you are not trying to avoid a ban or vote twice here... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Assume good faith!--Cts499m (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Towards an account that cites a policy in their <20th edit in a niche Wikipedia discussion? Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Piotrus: Although contributions from newcomers are not always viewed as equally important, deletion is not decided by voting anyway (see: Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Deletion_discussions). That is why I prefer to focus on the substance of the arguments being made by the participants of this discussion instead of just focusing on the person's username account history.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Steamboat2020: We need to strike the balance between arguments and potential WP:POINTed disruption. For example, in the last few months I've been a victim of on- and off-wiki harassment by a now-indef banned editor who was active in the topic area this article is related to and who has used dozens of socks. Now, I am not saying they are engaged in this discussion, and assuming good faith is good, as I don't want to poison the well. At the same time, to ignore the possibility that someone is trying to disrupt our process and harass editors would invoke another adage, about putting one hand in the sand. We need to consider the arguments, yes, but sometimes there is a more to them than appears. When an account is clearly new and edits a problematic area, it may be a coincidence - or not. WP:VANISH or WP:DUCK? Toss a coin I guess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • • • @Piotrus - even if we discard the comments of the new users there are still enough established editors who voted to keep this article - respectfully - you are the only who questioned whether this article should be kept--Steamboat2020 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. One of the most important rabbis in the British occupation zone. Thousands of agunot were freed of tether and allowed to remarry by his rulings. The hostility of the nominator is incomprehensible, is there some ulterior motive here? NochiZ (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I strongly believe Rabbi Lubinsky is noteworthy and I advocate to keep his page. Nevertheless, I need to point out that @Nochiz's edits are limited to participation in this AfD--Steamboat2020 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC) However, reasonable arguments from newcomers are always welcome (see: Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Deletion_discussions).--Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: among the excessive text above, there certainly was a substantial argument made for notability. In fact, other then the nominator (@piotrus), the consensus was to keep the page. Granted, there were a couple of new users (@Lomed Tamid & @nochiZ) who participated but the majority were established users (@Andrew Davidson and @Toughpigs and @Wm335td and @Cts499m) and they all voted to keep it.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I believe Steamboat2020 sources demonstrate notability.   // Timothy :: talk  05:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm satisfied as to notability with the non-English sources.--Jahaza (talk) 01:31, 7 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 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arvindr Khaira[edit]

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

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

A non-notable music director and producer. Fails WP:GNG. Zoodino (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: doesn't qualify WP:GNG, QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 00:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage to establish GNG. - hako9 (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per rationale of Johnpacklambert & hako9. Celestina007 09:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable enough. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:23, 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 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Read (personal trainer)[edit]

Tyler Read (personal trainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject appears non-notable. All sources seem promotional and unreliable. Upon searching for trusted sources, I was unable to find anything. The article is unlikely to be improved. ElliotPadfield (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ElliotPadfield (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ElliotPadfield (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: No notability at all and certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG criteria nor is subject WP:NOTEWORTHY. Pahiy (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing I meet WP:GNG . VocalIndia (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notabilty. scope_creep^Talk 15:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:PROMOTIONAL and not WP:NOTEWORTHY. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:24, 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 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Auditya Venkatesh[edit]

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

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

All of the refs listed in the article are interview articles of the subject, making them clearly inadmissible as an independent ref. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Page creator is welcome to list best three sources in the discussion, if wants to rebut the claim. Zoodino (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete interviews do not add towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 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 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Masyanya episodes[edit]

List of Masyanya episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable list of episodes in violation of WP:LISTN. Article was deprodded with no attempt to improve with reliable sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I can't necessarily say it's a clear example of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT since there are lots of "List of XX episodes" out there, but this one has no source, and even the parent article this spins out from is of questionable notability with only one YouTube reference. -2pou (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability. Even the notability of the series itself is questionable. Ajf773 (talk) 08:22, 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 speedy delete. I speedy deleted the article as it was created by a sockpuppet of Daaask. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Konjam Coffee Niraya Cinema[edit]

Konjam Coffee Niraya Cinema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sign of notability. No significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Zoodino (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 18:04, 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 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Adamson[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR Roller26 (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If his works actually had come to be seen as important, we would have much better sourcing on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per WP:NAUTHOR: [39] (2-page review); [40] (1-paragraph review); and [41] (1-paragraph review). Reluctant to rely too heavily on the latter, but they are indexed on JSTOR which to my knowledge is discriminating as to what it indexes. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, JSTOR indexes 12 million articles, I don't think that just 3 articles reviewing your work (2 of which are 1 paragraph based) is enough to be considered notable under WP:AUTHOR criteria. -- Roller26 (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. His Marx Brothers book is very notable, a search will bring up sources for it, but that book does not have an article. If that book had its own article, maybe the article for the author would be unnecessary? Donaldd23 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as well, especially because of the Marx Brothers book, which Vanity Fair and RogerEbert.com have praised. Caro7200 (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews exist for his other books--the Los Angeles Times reviewed the Walter Lantz book, just to mention one, so keeping this article under the Joe Adamson name would seem to be appropriate. Caro7200 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources pass WP:GNG per comments from Caro7200 Donaldd23 AleatoryPonderings, [42] puts it over the top for me.   // Timothy :: talk  13:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it has been shown in this discussion that his works have been reviewed in reliable sources such as The LA Times and academic journals so that he passes WP:NAUTHOR criteria 4 (c), in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:56, 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 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmatians (band)[edit]

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

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

Effectively unsourced since creation in 2006 [sic]. A search turned up their Discogs page (according to which they released only the one album listed in the article) and nothing else. (They are not to be confused with other bands with similar names, such as Australian duo The Dalmatians.) Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, reliable Seattle coverage seems to be about it. Caro7200 (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No evidence of notability / no reliable sources. Sourced to record label website and Last.fm, none of them establish any notability. Since they have a rather generic name, many other stuff was found (including the actual dog, other bands with this name / other bands whose name includes the word "dalmatians") but relatively little stuff about them. It seems to me that they aren't very popular / a very underground band so nobody covered them. (Even though I have seen underground bands with more coverage.) I find that weird that even though they are active, to this day, they released only one album to very little fanfare (or should I say none). I have a suspicion that they have actually split up a long time ago but I might be wrong. But still, just another non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:43, 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 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Himmata Ram Bhambhu[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Coverage found only for when the subject was awarded Padma Shri (fourth highest civilian honor in India), which classifies as WP:1E. Zoodino (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the award he won is not at a level to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 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. Tone 19:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amman (TV series)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:TVSERIES and WP:GNG, no significant (better to say none) coverage in reliable and independent sources. P.S. - Times of India (used as a ref in the article) has a history of including promotional articles and the general consensus is not to accept it as a reliable source in such context. Zoodino (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of reliable resources. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sources and WP:BEFORE don't meet notability. Might just be WP:TOOSOON, but it might never be WP:CRYSTAL   // Timothy :: talk  14:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per everyone. Sunshine1191 (talk) 10:02, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alok Ojha[edit]

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

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

Article about a non-notable person. Making claim to notability. Yes he/she may have helped saved lives but still doesnt meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:RS. Lapablo (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly non-notable. Page was created by a blocked user and should have potentially been nominated for speedy deletion. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Utterly non-notable cobblers. The closest this gets to notability is WP:ONEEVENT, and even that's still lightyears away. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of notability. Noahfgodard (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous comments. Rogermx (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Doesn't qualify WP:GNG QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 00:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Notability not established Ab207 (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not justified. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and notability presented is just WP:ONEEVENT ~ Amkgp 💬 06:28, 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. Not seeing the need for salting, given that the page hasn't been repeatedly recreated. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies[edit]

Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable predatory journal. All Akinik Publications I could find are in Beall's list (individually, not trough the publisher). Indexed nowhere. Fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and potentially salt given the damage having an article on this could do. It's also on Wikispecies and should possibly be deleted there too, though not sure if all journals with ISSNs are automatically included? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NJOURNAL. add salt.   // Timothy :: talk  14:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom ~ Amkgp 💬 15:02, 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 withdrawn. With the amount of proper citations in the article now, I feel this passes WP:N. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 04:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid River (video game)[edit]

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

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

This game does not meet the notability guidelines. Nothing I could find proves that this is deserving of its own page. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 16:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 16:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have substantial changes to make to the page, including new references that show it is deserving of its own page. These major edits should make the page suitable to remain (I will be ready to add them by the end of this weekend). I have tried to settle this in the talk page, but my most recent messages have been ignored. On top of this, I am concerned that initially the page was just redirected to a generic list of Namco games, effectively deleting all its content, which isn't following the proper procedure. Who knows how many other Namco pages have been pseudo removed in this way to avoid any discussion on keeping pages? kingjuliando :^) 09:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I redirected a lot of these Namco pages because none offer any significant coverage from sources. I don't have the time to mark every single one of those for deletion, and I can see these being suitable redirects, hence my decision. So I don't see how that "isn't following the proper procedure", since WP:R says that is allowable. None of the sources you added provide any significant coverage anyway, all of it is just mentions in pages for other games. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 15:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry I think there's been a misunderstanding; we haven't updated the page yet to include the numerous references I mentioned. As I suggested on the talk page, maybe the best course of action is to revoke this deletion request for the time being and wait for the updated version of the page (which should be completed by this weekend)? I'm obviously happy to notify you of the updated version to see if you're happy with it! Is that a fair compromise for the moment (as I'm not sure how quickly these deletion requests get reviewed)? kingjuliando :^) 16:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As KingJulianDO promised to update the page with more references. I'm busy reworking a game list for a computer but i can help to find the game's exact release date after i'm done with the list, assuming the page is not deleted by the time i finish with that endeavor... Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That comes off as WP:CRYSTALBALL. I need to see these for myself before I change my decision. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 17:51, 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 17:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KFC Srinagar[edit]

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

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

This article is not necessary to be on Wikipedia Chinar(Message) 16:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Chinar(Message) 16:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Individual KFC outlets are not usually notable, even if they are the first in a territory (all be it one of 350 in KFC#India as a whole). A bit of news on this opening, but no reason to expect anything else.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Don't see anything worthy for a merge to KFC#India. A redirect is unnecessary. - hako9 (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG. Nothing encyclopedic in the article to redirect. Ab207 (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fast food franchises are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - scraping the bottom of the notability barrel unfortunately Spiderone 22:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Nominator. Priyanjali singh (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is nothing significant about this outlet. I can find this news [43] although it relies on Twitter posts. There can some significance due to it being KFC's first outlet in Kashmir, but in this case multiple mainstream media should have reported it. Without such reports, I support deleting this article.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:08, 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 19:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus Media Technology[edit]

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

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

Unreachable website that had little to no actual impact during its lifespan. Fully half of the text is not about this company/web site at all but about other things the founder has done in an obvious attempt to pump up the citations. Of the ten citations about the company, seven are 404 or redirected and no longer available. Two of the remaining are simple press releases and one is a story in the Independent newspaper about that paper buying tech from this company for the paper's then-new video news service. None of the sources in the article are independent of the company. The possibility of making this an article about Eborn (the founder) since two-thirds of the cites are about their projects instead is also undermined by the same sourcing problems. There are no other sources available through searches to suggest notability of the person or the company under GNG or any relevant SNG that do not share these issues. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don’t really see anything here that looks like solid notability. The article has been updated regularly for years with new press releases so although the whole thing is pretty messy the main purpose of it appears to be promotional and I don’t believe most if the contributions have been made by uninvolved editors. Mccapra (talk) 04:22, 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 keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GAP (G.A.P.) Ensemble[edit]

GAP (G.A.P.) Ensemble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I cannot find sources which indicate that WP:NMUSIC is met SmartSE (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable ensemble. Classical music is awesome, so I am a bit saddened to say this. But no evidence of notability nor reliable sources. Just trash sites like apple music, deezer, amazon, google play, blank Allmusic page, concert sites, the website of the subject and various retail sites. It has no articles on other Wikipedias. Also, the creator of the article hadn't edited anything else besides this article and its talk page, so there's a COI (conflict of interest) around here. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: I didn't want to vote delete, but doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG.   // Timothy :: talk  14:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep This is an exceptionally difficult field in which to meet our notability requirements, but I have found three independent reviews of their cd releases at 1 2 and 3. Pinging @Gerda Arendt: who knows this field well and may have other thoughts/contributions. Mccapra (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was pinged and will look. The first impression is not too good, due to an awful article name (GAP (ensemble)?) and bad formatting, but that only shows an inexperienced user. A CD review by musicweb indicates notability, though, strongly so! - I will look, but am still in my morning routine, and behind with many things after a busy day yesterday, - see my talk. Patience please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I looked now, and they made world premiere recordings reviewed by experts. I added four refs, and will find more, but past midnight, - some more patience please. - Adding: the article should be G. A. P. Ensemble, looking at the sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: as per sources found by Mccapra --Whiteguru (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources found by Mccapra and Gerda, seems to meet NMUSIC, with the caveat that I don't know enough about the sources to assess their reliability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (changed vote from above): as per sources found by Mccapra and Gerda Arendt.   // Timothy :: talk  05:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]