< 5 August	7 August >

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AVI Global Trust[edit]

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

This company doesn't seem to be notable. All the sources out there about it seem to just be basic company profiles, things about it changing it's name, or news about it's stock price. I'm not seeing the multiple in-depth reliable sources that it would need to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP though. Adamant1 (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Please see WP:LISTED. In the case of listed companies "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies". Also this a FTSE 250 Index company so it is one of the larger companies on the London Stock Exchange by market capitalisation. It is also one of the oldest companies on the London Stock Exchange. Dormskirk (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing that exempts a company that's on an international exchange to be deleted if it lacks the multiple in-depth reliable sources that are needed for it to pass WP:NCORP. If in-depth coverage it can be found though, great. I could really care less. Maybe next time wait to vote until you actually find the sources your claiming exist though, because the one you added about them buying back shares doesn't cut it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had only just started: I have added a few more: perhaps you will now do the right thing and remove the tag. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources you added are much of the same. Notability isn't just about sources "existing." They have to be about none trivial topics or not contain trivial coverage, and all the sources you added are trivial in both respects. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the notability guidelines for companies and find sources that actually pass them. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I have clearly wasted a lot of time here trying to rescue an article. In my view this is an interesting company and I do not accept the material I have added is trivial - we will just have to differ. Dormskirk (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, two of the sources you posted are the exact same article just from different websites. I would consider trying to pass off the same article as two different ones a waste of time and not one that comes from a difference in opinions on what's appropriate. Things like that clearly come a from lack of knowledge about the guidelines or the intent to ignore them, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Either way though being familiar with the guidelines before posting them as I suggested would have kept you from wasting the time you spent doing it. Your the one that decided to ignore me and in no way is anything along the lines of "keep because I spent time on this" a valid argument. Even if you weren't trying to pass a single source off as two separate ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the article which was the same albeit from two different sources. I hope you are now OK with this. Dormskirk (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing here is acceptable even at this stage, the company clearly meets both GNG and NCORP. This is a FTSE 250 company which was established by an Act of the UK Parliament in the 19th Century, The company had a history section on their website linking to a 150pg book, I was able to validate some of it through a quick look through a library search under the respective company names listed there, which mades me think this is indeed a notable and interesting company. A tale of Diamonds, and War for whoever has time to properly source it is particularly relevant to the history of British Colonialism in South Africa. PainProf (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There may have been some confusion in the nominator's original search for sources, because the company has changed its name four times since its founding in 1889. It was originally called the Transvaal Mortgage Loan and Finance Company, and then became the British Empire Land Mortgage and Loan Company in 1906, British Empire Securities and General Trust Limited in 1964 and British Empire Trust in 2015. It's only been operating as AVI Global Trust since May 2019, so that may account for the sources seeming trivial at first, and mostly concerned with the name change — it's only been a year since that name has been used. There's a wider range of sources that come up if you look for the older names. To the sources already present in the article, I added a review of the company from The Times, and a discussion of the company's holdings and finances in an 1896 book called South American Mines; Their Position, Results, & Developments. I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable company listed on the Stock Exchange, it's the old British Empire Trust a renowned company Devokewater@ 09:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources already in the article and those listed above. It's a component of the FTSE 250. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:05, 13 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) 23:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Sathanya[edit]

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

Upcoming child actress. However, couldn't find any sources save for a film review and this source which barely mentions her.^[1]^[2] TamilMirchi (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable 13-year-old actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable.--evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 16:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG Spiderone 17:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, failing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, and the fact that I don't see this AfD getting to the point where keep is an option. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable , does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Alex-h (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater@ 12:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR and even WP:GNG. We cannot even invoke WP:TOOSOON. It's almost not worth mentioning that the text has been uploaded by yet another single-purpose account. -The Gnome (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by the nominator. Closed per request in comments. as Speedy Keep (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 13:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kasaraneni Sadasivarao[edit]

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

I believe this person fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Even once I cleaned up all the spam, this is a poorly sourced article. Bringing to AfD because I think they may be borderline. He absolutely fails WP:GNG though. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per comments below. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The 2012 obituary from The Hindu confirms that the subject served as an MLA, which meets WP:NPOL criterion 1. AllyD (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 17:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject had been elected as MLA of Pedakurapadu constituency from the party Telugu Desam Party in Andhra Pradesh legislative assembly in 1989.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Umakant Bhalerao, AllyD So one of the reasons I nominated this was because I was unsure of him passing NPOL. However, in saying that, wouldn't his failure to meet WP:GNG superseded this? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi HickoryOughtShirt?4. Here's my opinion. SNG's are basically more refined guidelines for determining WP:N within a certain area. SNG's make the presumption of notability, which is most often correct, but a presumption assumes something (in this case notability) in the absence of explicit evidence; if someone feels the presumption is not supported by evidence (a lack of WP:RS), the presumption can be called into question for discussion. ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article". Ultimately I believe it all comes down to whether there is a consensus that there are likely multiple WP:RS that are verifiable and independent of the subject that addresses the subject directly and in detail and that the subject not be excluded by WP:WWIN. It's my opinion, but I hope this helps. // Timothy :: talk 07:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: There is at least one decent source in the article. Because of his work and election to a state assembly think it is likely there are multiple WP:RS that are verifiable and independent of the subject that addresses the subject directly and in detail. // Timothy :: talk 07:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Satisfies NPOL as member of state legislature. --Ab207 (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily passes WP:NPOL as legislator. --Soman (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sadasivarao served as a member of a state legislature. LefcentrerightDiscuss 08:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a member of a state legislative body he is notable. Alex-h (talk) 12:50, 9 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) 23:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madhurima Sundersen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Couldn't find any Telugu or English sources about this actress. Therefore, she is not notable. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater@ 16:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR and even WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 09:18, 11 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 09:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kar Pape (film)[edit]

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

Admittedly, this film is from 1952 and was in a non-English language, so information will be tough to find unless anyone can help with Bengali sources. The article's "Plot" section is empty, possibly because the article's creator could not find the info in a search of English sources, and I could not either. Results in English via a standard Google search and a Google Books search are like the sources already in the article: very brief listings in sites dedicated to the Bengali scene, or passing mentions in the actors' biographies. No evidence can be found to satisfy WP:NFILM in this fashion. If anyone can deliver reliable and informative sources in the film's native language, I will withdraw the nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userfying/ Weak Keep: The article should be moved to userspace of @Tarunsamanta: or any other user wiling to do so as it is possible that some new refrensec may come up in local newspapers. --User:श्रीमान २००२ (User talk:श्रीमान २००२) 09:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: I think userfying is a reasonable idea if the targeted user is willing to make the effort to track down obscure sources. If the user is unable or unwilling, delete the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still, we need reliable sources and not just "obscure" ones. -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 18:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject blatantly fails WP:NFILM. Wikipedia is not a directory of the world's films. -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It might be a good film, but it appears to have been largely forgotten and fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. The references are about the actor Uttam Kumar and just mention the film in passing. // Timothy :: talk 00:52, 13 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 09:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nanosite[edit]

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

A fictional term from a passage in a book. Nothing notable about this concept or other 3rd party sources. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The history of this page is certainly something else. It originated as a redirect to Nanobot way back in 2004, with the claim that it is a common name for them (which I haven't found much evidence for), before being changed to a completely unsourced article on a type of "offline website", before being changed again to be about this incredibly minor fictional element. Searching for sources turns up a number of hits using the term, but a lot of them seem to be referring to completely different things, and none of them appear to have any coverage to make them notable. Maybe this term could be redirected somewhere appropriate, but I sure can't begin to figure out where that would be. Rorshacma (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Data Group#History, I added a sentence-long mention on that page about a product they produced which had this name, and I think a redirect would be fine. I will admit, I was mainly motivated in doing this by a desire to keep that rollercoaster of a page history around. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of sources, which cannot meet the WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a fictional word/concept in a novel is not WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT. // Timothy :: talk 01:02, 13 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) 23:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Korala Maan[edit]

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

Would appear to fail notability, and the sources used are not reliable. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer who does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NSINGER and WP:CREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. When I went looking I thought I would find some biographical articles due to the number watch this or listen to this one line promos, but the closest I came was this. Might just be WP:TOOSOON. // Timothy :: talk 01:16, 13 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 Tourism in Nauru#Accommodation. Tone 09:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Menen Hotel[edit]

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

This hotel does not seem to be notable. From what I can tell, its one of the only hotels in Nauru, which is interesting, but I can't find any non-trivial sources about it online. TheAwesome Hwyh 20:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 21:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (and possibly selectively merge) to Tourism in Nauru#Accommodation, where the hotel is mentioned. I agree there isn't much online coverage of the hotel in online sources, all I found was mentions in travel guides, blog-like articles on the hotel, or passing mentions in news sources. Perhaps that's because it is just a hotel in the least visited and one of the least populous countries in the world. But considering it is the largest hotel in the country, there could be offline coverage out there, and I am open to be persuaded if someone would dig out the sources that may be out there. --Dps04 (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly Merged: Since there didn't seem to be any objection, I was bold and merged the content from this article, OD-N-Aiwo Hotel and Tourism in Nauru (all stubs) to Nauru#Tourism and Transportation. If someone objects, feel free to revert or if there is a consensus to revert, I will undo the changes. // Timothy :: talk 02:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (and possibly selectively merge) to Tourism in Nauru#Accommodation. Struck my comment above due to revert. // Timothy :: talk 13:30, 13 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 09:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slowly (app)[edit]

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

Non notable app. A before search doesn’t show the app has been discussed in any reliable sources. Celestina007 20:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to be notable. I could not find any reliable sources discussing this app. TheAwesome Hwyh 22:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Notability can be established by the following reliable sources per WP:RSP:

Bhagat, Hitesh Raj. "Slowly review: The app lets you revive the pen-friend experience". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2020-08-07.
"'Kind Words' is the rare social network where everyone is nice". Engadget. Retrieved 2020-08-07.

This should be enough but here are a few other sources where the app has been covered:

Editor (2019-03-22). "Take it SLOWLY". Varsity. Retrieved 2020-08-07. ((cite web)): |last= has generic name (help)
"App of the week: Slowly". The Eyeopener. Retrieved 2020-08-07.

The app has gained recognition by Apple App Store's editors as "App of the Day". The featured story included an exclusive interview with the app's founder. It has also won a Google Play Award of the year 2019. Sources for these are available in the article. Idell (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these sources show notability. Varsity and The Eyopener are just student newspapers, the Engagenet source barely mentions this app. I'm unsure about The Economic Times, but even if that is a good source, that's only one source. TheAwesome Hwyh 14:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both the first two sources are considered perennial reliable sources. I’m sure both of them more than "barely" mention this app, rather, they speak highly of it. Engadget recommends it over other apps, including the one the webpage is about, for a good pen pal experience. I have also cited the South China Morning Post (SCMP) in the article. I have included Varsity and The Eyeopener considering the "general" reliability of their content upon a quick inspection; we don’t have to blindly trust them. Furthermore, this application has won particularly highly esteemed awards and recognitions at both the platforms (ignoring the web app) it exists on.

…editors might…keep it if the article cites…newspapers to prove it won awards.
— HELP:AFD

Idell (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Engadgenet article isn't about this app though, its about a different app which it compares to this one. Again, I haven't looked into the South China Morning Post, but even if that is reliable it's only two sources. Looking a bit deeper at the student papers, The Eyeopener does not look reliable to me, Varsity read like an ad. And I don't think the App of the day is a award prestigious enough to add notability, nor is Google Play's "best breakthrough app" award. TheAwesome Hwyh 14:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: References #2, 6-11 in the article are reliable. Per analysis done by Idell, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per sources cited above. // Timothy :: talk 02:35, 13 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 09:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Pigeon (Canadian publication)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a brand new online media startup, not yet the subject of enough reliable source coverage about it to clear WP:NMEDIA. As always, websites are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability bar is the degree to which the publication has been the subject of independent coverage in reliable sources analyzing the significance of its work. But three of the eight footnotes here are to the website itself, a fourth is a writer for the publication answering questions about it Q&A style in a YouTube video, and one is a design and communications firm's corporate blog, which means five of the eight footnotes are not valid support for notability at all. And of the remaining three, one is a very short blurb in a media industry trade publication, which is not substantive enough to help get this over WP:GNG. The closest thing to a strong source here is one article (repeated as two distinct footnotes) in a university journalism school magazine, which is not enough coverage to singlehandedly clinch notability all by itself if it's the best source on offer. It needs much better sources than this before it can be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per a very thoughtful nom. It's essentially a glorified blog at the moment. I struggle to see how a site that has existed for just over a month and has published maybe 50 articles could possibly be notable now. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:13, 13 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 09:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mediagrif[edit]

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:CORP nor possess WP:CORPDEPTH as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search mostly links to primary sources & websites where companies upload their products & services. Celestina007 19:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 19:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 19:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 19:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 19:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 19:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost all sources are the company's own press releases (issued via NewsWire) or from affiliated companies. The only third-party ref simply provides a list of the 500 largest companies in Quebec with no discussion about the company. Mind matrix 12:40, 7 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 Dan Friedkin. Tone 09:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Friedkin Group[edit]

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:ORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search reveals mere announcements, press releases & self published sources which are all considered unreliable reliable sources Celestina007 18:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Dan Friedkin, the company's founder, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rredirect to Dan Friedkin per above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely needs to be improved, but there's no way it should be deleted. It is mentioned that the Friedkin Group is a non-notable organization. I'd like to ask how this is possible given that the company gets revenues of more than $10 billion per year. Additionally, it is the parent of many important companies that have their own wikipedia pages. Improvement is definitely needed, but if the reason for deletion is that it is a non-notable organization, then it's untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParaguaneroSwag (talk • contribs) 23:03, 12 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 09:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Crossing, California[edit]

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

If someone can look this up in Durham and see if he says anything substantial, this one might be salvageable. Otherwise, all I have is a name on a topo map with nothing at all around it other than the creek. Searching on such a generic phrase is terrible but even trying to restrict it to Lassen County I don't get anything that I can identify with this locale. Mangoe (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending confirmation of what's in Durham. Both newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.org do a poor job of searching for "The Crossing." No post office. I did find one reference searching for "The Crossing" and "Willow Creek". Fairfield has one slightly possible reference on page 35, where it states that in 1856 L. N. (Newt) Breed set up a trading post "at the crossing of Willow Creek" - note that "the crossing" is in lower case and seems to be generic. Cxbrx (talk) 13:31, 7 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 09:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hakeem Muri-Okunola[edit]

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

Non-notable lawyer. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Sources are self-generated PR. scope_creep^Talk 13:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer and public servant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - as a lawyer, he's not particularly notable, but he might pass as the highest civil servant (Lagos State Head of Service), the largest state government in Nigeria. It's unclear if he passes WP:NPOL. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notably he served as Permanent Secretary prior to his role as Head of Service ([2]). The Permanent Secretary post alone should be enough to warrant notability, since that position is very powerful in Nigerian state machinery. A quick google shows plenty of coverage. Lagos State has some 17 million inhabitants, btw. --Soman (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep, passes basic and as the head of the largest civil service in Nigeria. Kaizenify (talk) 11:12, 13 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 09:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Wigwe[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Its BLP SPAM. scope_creep^Talk 13:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Is this an actual AfD, was the article read at all? was before performed? Saying failed XYZ, without explaining HOW the article fails that guideline is not how AfD works. Stormy Chamber (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Stormy Chamber: Well, yes. It is a real Afd. WP:BEFORE was done, as I do or did in the 2000odd other Afd's I have completed. It fails to match up WP:BIO which is the main notability criteria for individuals. scope_creep^Talk 18:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, a non-notable Nigerian businessman and banker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep very interesting to see a nomination like this while i understand that the nominator might have nominated this for deletion because of the spam creation of the subject creator but we cant possible throw out the baby with the bath water. The subject is the CEO and managing Director of Nigeria's biggest bank according to African Business Central and duely satisfy the basic notabality criteria which include ANYBIO having won significant awards which include 2017 African Business Leader award by CNBC, 2019 Nigerian Banker Of The Year and a host of others. The subject has also been covered in multibe reliable independent sources. Kaizenify (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - CEO of the largest bank in one of Africa's largest nations. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the sources in the article combined meet WP:BASIC. I'm reasonably sure there are more sources in Nigerian newspapers. // Timothy :: talk 02:57, 13 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 IEEE Communications Society. $Salvio$ 21:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable, just established journal, too young to be notable yet (WP:TOOSOON). Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator with reason "It is from a well established organisation IEEE. Many articles are already published since Jan 2020. It is an annual published journal and meets WP:GNG". However, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, even respective publishers create the occasional dud (see examples on my user page), and there is no indication that this meets GNG. PROD reason therefore still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ the journal do meets WP:GNG and is indexed in IEEE Xplore and INSPEC. It is an annual edition not monthly or quarterly like others. I don't think IEEE publishes to create the occasional, that too 14 OA journals together^[3]. If they discontinue in future, it can be merged with IEEE Communications Society page. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/movie-reviews/110317/nishabdham-movie-review-baby-sathanya-steals-the-thunder.html
^ https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/kollywood/270816/abhinaya-in-yet-another-challenging-role.html
^ Stickel, Monika; Tardo, Francine (20 August 2019). "IEEE Announces New Open Access Journals". www.ieee.org. Retrieved 6 August 2020.

Comment: It is understood that the nominator is in favor of deletion, by making the WP:AFD. So, the vote within the explanation seems unnecessary and a kind of WP:BLUDGEON to me in good faith. As per WP:NJournals Criterion 3 (C3) 3.a) Journal age is not a consideration here. So it would be unfair to tag a journal just established journal, too young to be notable yet ~ Amkgp 💬 19:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is not a shred of evidence of this meeting GNG. Being indexed in IEEE Xplore is beyond trivial, that's the journal access platform of the publisher. It's like arguing that an Elsevier journal is notable because it is on ScienceDirect. Being listed in Inspec is not generally considered sufficient for meeting NJournals (and even less GNG). The periodicity of the journal is completely irrelevant to notability (and it's not "annual", but like most OA journals its continually published). Arguing "If they discontinue in future, it can be merged with IEEE Communications Society page." is akin to saying "it's not notable yet". The remark about "just established journal, too young to be notable yet" is just meant to recognize that this may become notable in the future, but that right now (as the article creator acknowledges just above) it is not notable yet. --Randykitty (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IEEE Communications Society . Changed my vote after going through the points put up by Randykitty ~ Amkgp 💬 21:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IEEE Communications Society as WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This proposed deletion seems like artificial bureaucratic fussiness. Wikipedia should not be a bureaucracy. IEEE ComSoc is a major scholarly organization that produces only very high quality journals. They simply don't publish any junk journals. Randykitty's examples of failed journals from respectable publishers do not include any from IEEE ComSoc or even from the entire IEEE, and most of the failed publications listed there seem to still be notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. The editor-in-chief of this journal, Octavia Dobre, is a very highly distinguished professor with a strong track record of producing high quality peer-reviewed journals (see here and here). Our time would be much better spent converting the red link for Octavia Dobre into an article and looking for articles on topics of clearly lesser notability for proposed deletion. Megalibgwilia (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that !vote basically argues that we should do away with AfD because it is too bureaucratic... In any case, nobody said that this journal is junk. We are not here to judge the quality of the journal, but its notability. Chances are indeed that in time this will become notable, but even while published by a reputable publisher, that is not certain at all (see the examples on my talk page of journals established by solid, reputable publishers that nonetheless fizzled after a few years without ever becoming notable). In any case, I can live with a redirect as proposed by several participants. That way the history is preserved and if the journal become notable a few years from now ("if", not "when"), the article can easily be restored and updated where needed. As for Dobre, she's likely notable (albeit it probably not as an editor) and instead of writing snarky comments, it is indeed a better use of time to write a bio for her. --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my comments appeared "snarky", as that was not my intent. I simply think this discussion is a waste of time and the journal is clearly notable. That is my opinion, and is not "snark". I have begun an article about Prof. Dobre and would would welcome help with that. Megalibgwilia (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IEEE Communications Society per Randykitty and Amkgp. I don't see anything really that could be merged. IEEE Communications Magazine and IEEE Wireless Communications should also have minimal content merged and the redirected. // Timothy :: talk 03:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TimothyBlue, IEEE Communications Magazine and IEEE Wireless Communications passes WP:NJournals clearly. Both are high impact peer-reviewed journals indexed in most major indexing databases. Merging and redirect them currently is un-necessary. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Amkgp agreed regarding notability, but nothing says they must have their own article just because they pass. Just a suggestion because they are short stubs and they might be better positioned in the larger article. Either way, I don't feel strongly enough about it to even finish this sentenc // Timothy :: talk 04:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TimothyBlue, If you visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals, you will find that 6,500+ articles are stubs. The only thing we need to be concerned regarding 'journals & magazines(academic)' is that they must pass WP:NJournal and WP:GNG and are not a part of Predatory publishing ~ Amkgp 💬 04:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IEEE Communications Society is an easy solution to a subject that otherwise fails any notability guideline and would be deleted. Ifnord (talk) 18:24, 14 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chevrolet Corvette owners[edit]

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

See WP:CARTRIVIA, WP:IPC, and WP:LC. Lists of people who own things are generally pop-culture/trivia. Vossanova ^o< 18:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. If this was some rare car or something a list might be possibly be reasonable, but this is not that car.--Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:LISTN (and not just because Corvettes pass everything). When I wrote this article I asked myself, "will someone nominate this article for deletion?" So I looked first at Category:Chevrolet Corvette and counted an eye-popping 43 (yes...43!) articles about Corvettes, with combined page-views of about a half-million viewers annually. In other words, this isn't a list of "people who enjoy Fritos corn chips". Then I looked at WP:SALAT, where a consensus of editors agreed that "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination", although there are some limits listed. Specifically, to "limit the size and topic of lists", editors should avoid lists that are "too general or too broad in scope", and second, editors should avoid lists that transgress WP:NOT. I don't believe this list meets either of those two criteria. Finally, the nominator, User:Vossanova, has stated "Lists of people who own things are generally pop-culture/trivia". Is there a consensus someplace supporting this assertion? Interestingly, Joe Biden released a campaign advertisement today where he's driving his Corvette and pitching American-made products. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd comment on the WP:SALAT line "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination". This is not a "consensus" of editors. It's an observation. It can apply to lists, articles, images, just about anything, really. It is only saying that an infinite number of lists could be created. It's not saying that they should be created. The line is followed about how there should be limits to what kinds of lists are created. --Vossanova ^o< 18:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Simply a list of notable people who own Corvettes, with few being really noteworthy for owning the cars. The astronauts' ownership is the rare exception. and perhaps Biden's use in his ad, both of which can be and probably are covered elsewhere already. - BilCat (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CARTRIVIA, WP:IPC and WP:LC cited by the nomination are all essays and so there is no policy-based case to answer. All the entries in this list are cited and it seems to be quite tidy and well-constructed. I'm not seeing a problem here -- just a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. BTW, while Diamond Joe is famous for his muscle-cars, it is amusing to find that Donald Trump has a gold-plated chopper and a Tesla! Andrew🐉(talk) 21:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list is almost so trivial as to be meaningless. This isn't a particularly rare car, so why should it matter if a celebrity owns it? This is sort of like a "List of iPhone 7 owners": way too broad. TheAwesome Hwyh 22:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 22:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utter trivia, not a defining or meaningful characteristic for something widely available for decades. Most sources are passing mentions of ownership; no significant sources covering the topic as a whole either. We should not have lists of owners of Honda Civics or Teslas or Ferraris, you know damn well this is ridiculous. Widespread popularity of the car (and our articles on its variations) does not justify this. A better alternative would be a section in the main article using prose and substantive sources to discuss the car's cultural status and major appearances in society, expanding on the last paragraph of the lead (certainly including Joe Biden and it being symbol of American manufacturing), not meaningless mere mentions that random famous people had once owned one, just like my second cousin. Reywas92^Talk 23:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I didn't. :) BilCat (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe this meets WP:LISTN. Out of the 25 corresponding articles for each "notable" owner, exactly two of them (and one only in passing) mention ownership of a Corvette. For example, the Guy Fieri article mentions that he is a car collector and goes so far as to list several cars he has owned, none of which were a Corvette. For any given notable figure with a passing interest in cars, the fact that, at one point, they owned a Corvette is trivial. Furthermore, most of these owners (with the exception of the astronauts, which would possibly be appropriate for its own article) are not notable in the context of the Corvette, i.e. the popularity of the Corvette was not affected by their ownership. Nor was their ownership notable in its own right, take for example Bill Gate's Porsche 959. None of the entries are notable as to a specific Corvette e.g. the first X, the last Y, the only Z, etc, other than being owned by that particular person. Finally, in several cases the sources fail to meet WP:RS, for example several are merely publishing that a car allegedly owned by whomever is for sale (arguably proving notability), and are factually inaccurate on their face, cutting against their reliability. Others still are mere side notes in a much longer story about the person, which hardly support actual ownership, much less notability. IPBilly (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails LISTN, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and in particular IPBilly's detailed analysis. Ravenswing 04:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE WP:NOTTRIVIA. There are literally going to be hundreds of notable people who own or have owned these models. Ajf773 (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, like aren't there loads of celebrities and other rich b*st*rds who piss their money away on massive car collections? Jay Leno's Garage would go on dozens of stupid lists like this were it replicated for any of hundreds of car models out there. By no means is something so hopelessly incomplete "quite tidy" or "well-constructed". Reywas92^Talk 16:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Being "incomplete" is not a reason for deletion. What is needed to make this list more complete? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: How would you complete this what is the inclusion criteria? I think the list you wanted to create was List of Chevrolet Corvette collectors. They would have to be sourced as a collector and have a blue link. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: The tenor of those of us supporting deletion is not that we're doing so because this doesn't list every celeb who's ever owned a Corvette; as you say, "incomplete" is not a valid deletion ground. I'd hate to see you bust your head putting in more sources and more celebs and still not meet the genuine issues. Ravenswing 19:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to see if the article would float. One never knows how the winds blow. Fun to see Heidi Fleiss and Biden on the same list. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned the hard way that there are easier ways of doing that than through AfDs! Sometimes opening a discussion.on the main article's talk page, or on a topic project talk page, and see what happens. That might be the way to go with List of Chevrolet Corvette collectors, which is more focused, and have better inclusion criteria. BilCat (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lists articles are a wildcard, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lakes named after people. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So see if there's enough information to make a substantive article. You can probably find some interested editors at Talk:Chevrolet Corvette. BilCat (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the charming breezy quality of Magnolia677's comments, which is much appreciated. This list and List of lakes named after people may squeak through our "rules about lists" as those rules are currently set up. That only suggests our rules need some work. The actual content here isn't encyclopedic information with the meaning or significance we expect in an article. It's just data. --Lockley (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more listworthy than List of yacht owners, List of private jet owners, List of palace owners, or even List of people who ask complete strangers for Grey Poupon. Rich people can afford great toys. So? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbitrary trivia, listing famous people who own a certain kind of car, and not even a rare one at that. Further, the actual list criteria appears to be "List of People Who Have Ever Owned a Corvette in Their Lifetime", as there are dead people (Orbison, Fawcett, Wayne) on the list as well as, another dead guy who lost it to bankruptcy before dying? Silly. Zaathras (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is arbitray, dynamic, and 100 % trivia – I don't see any encyclopedic and useful information. There are endless options for similar lists, and we don't need any of them. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People owning a brand of car is not what made them notable, therefore listing them this way is worthless when we already have article for the car brand and these people where we can simply mention that they owned a car like this.★Trekker (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's next? List of bald people deleted in 2006? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you're wondering where to go from here, there are two options into getting this info into articles. 1) Mention the people in Chevrolet Corvette, or 2) Note the Corvette ownership in the owners' individual articles.

Regarding #1, WP:CARTRIVIA states "Similarly, lists of celebrity owners of cars tend to grow to inappropriate length. The guideline that has been widely accepted for automotive subjects is that mention of pop-culture references should be strictly limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design or other tangible aspect of the vehicle." You would only mention an owner in the car article if the ownership affected the car's notability, e.g. sales. As such, it's very rare to see specific owners mentioned in a car article.

Regarding #2, you need to ask yourself "is the ownership of this car something that is notable enough to go in that person's article"? It's not enough for the source to say they own the car; the source should also mention how it has affected the notability of the car or its owner. Maybe the owner is a noted car collector who prizes it and has discussed it often. Again, only a few of the owners on the list would pass that test, if any. --Vossanova ^o< 18:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List could include literally millions of people. How about a list of all owners of mobile homes? All owners of Alaskan gold bars? Truly inappropriate. Yipee8f93k (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone really wants to merge into List of 1965 pale yellow Dodge Dart owners. // Timothy :: talk 03:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia, non-notable intersection of notable topics (the car and the biographies). – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. After two full relistings and additional time, overall consensus is to merge to Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE Technology and Engineering Management Society[edit]

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

Previously PRODed (prodded?), so taking to AfD. Seems not to be notable outside of IEEE and their publications. I couldn't see much independant coverage to show it's notability for a standalone article. Kj cheetham (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging Fayenatic london and Andrew Davidson, who were involved in the original PROD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge per WP:ATD-M and the other similar cases. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with a merge, given no additional sources have yet to be found to make it notable enough for a standalone article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Society had a 2015 name change. Searching under its previous name "IEEE Technology Management Council" may yield extra results. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 09:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:ATD is not a valid reason to keep a specific article; this AfD needs a discussion of the notability of this particular article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge Unless something dramatically changes with the sources before the end of the AfD this doesn't seem notable enough for it's own article. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added/updated with new references including one each from Forbes and Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata ~ Amkgp 💬 05:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes contributor articles aren't considered reliable. Even Forbes says they don't reflect the opinions of the company. So, they can't be used for notability. The other one is fine, I guess. Except one source isn't good enough and it's a semi glorified press release anyway. Generally, you really need two in-depth reliable sources for something to be notable and it still doesn't seem to have that. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, I will add if I find anything more. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article passes WP:GNG ~ Amkgp 💬 05:41, 13 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) 23:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ragini (1958 film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search failed to even reveal the plot, beyond this passing mention. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did searches for Ragini and Raagini (since both are mentioned as the movie name in the article). The most substantial info I could find is the Tribune link listed in the nomination. All other sources only had a passing reference to the movie. Fails WP:NFILM. Z1720 (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 18:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought based on the actors listed in the article, something could be found, but nothing but passing references. It existed, that's about it. Doesn't pass WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. // Timothy :: talk 03:33, 13 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, after extended time for discussion. There are reasonable arguments that coverage is sufficient to keep, and apparently little appetite for deletion of this subject. BD2412 T 00:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rclone[edit]

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

Non-notable software package, page is a product brochure, all sources are the software's website. Being included in various Linux distros' repositories is not a claim to notability. There are a handful of Google hits for it, but almost all are blogs - the only one I found which might confer notability is this, but it's a how-to article, and I'd argue that a how-to isn't SIGCOV. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - if this ends up as delete, please restore the previous redirect to Rsync - this was an expanded redirect. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Article is a straight up copyvio of the software's website. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nathan2055: I disagree that it's a copyvio. While it was significantly copied and pasted, the source of that site's content is MIT-licensed, and MIT is compatible with our license. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackmcbarn: Fair enough, the fact that the text is freely licensed isn't made super clear on the page itself. In any event, Ed1964 has removed most of the copy-pasted text at this point so it's a non-issue. I've stricken my speedy delete !vote accordingly. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edward - rclone seems to be widely used and has been involved in attacks on Diebold ATMs ^[1]^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rclone (talk • contribs) 01:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

@GeneralNotability The references to rclone being rsync were incorrect. Rclone is rclone and rsync is rsync. rsync seems to have influenced rclone in some way but it didn't belong on the rsync page or redirected to rsync and it was originally trying to fix that erroneous redirect that got me into this furore to start with. Rclone (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Computing industry genuine news-site theregister.com reported the controversy involving rclone and Amazon Drive (not AWS S3) in 2017.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed1964 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wrote that comment about theregister and forgot to sign it.Ed1964 (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.theregister.com/2017/05/23/amazon_drive_bans_rclone_storage_client/

That rclone is in widespread use in situations is supported by the number of high performance computing institutions whose websites explain how to use rclone to transfer large research data sets from genomic and other fields. For instance the search 'rclone hpc' lists customised instructions from leading research bodies. Ed1964 (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some more work on this now. It would clearly have been better set off in a sandbox - in fact that was what I thought I had done before the furore started. I hope it will now be found to be noteworthy, interesting and worthy of the effort put into it. Ed1964 (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rclone is examined in academic work by the University of Kentucky at ^[1] The 2018 paper cites the rclone.org website and also makes reference to a further paper from the University of Utah. Both papers relate to use of rclone as a data transfer agent in a high performance computing environment. These are the sort of articles that make rclone noteworthy. They have nothing to do with me, or as far as I can tell the team that seem to be behind rclone. Ed1964 (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10073416

I have added references from seven major supercomputer centres relating to their use of rclone for big data into the rclone page. They are Berkeley, Yale, NIH, Wharton, Iowa, Utah and Maryland. Rclone is also used by The Minnesota Supercomputing Institute,^[1] Michigan State University HPCC,^[2] and Cambridge University's Crdiovascular Epidemiology Unit^[3] amongst others. References to the seven above are:- University of Maryland,^[4] Iowa State University,^[5] University of Utah,^[6] National Institutes of Health,^[7] Wharton,^[8] Yale^[9] and Berkeley.^[10] Ed1964 (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I'm leaning more on the keep side of things now thanks to the academic citations. I'm still not 100% certain that it meets WP:GNG, but the newly added sources certainly showcase fairly wide usage in contexts that would reasonably generate sources we could use. I'll take a look around and see if I can find some additional sources that could be added. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article has been WP:REFBOMBed with lots of citations, but these are pretty much all trivial mentions. - MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Nathan2055. I think the citations are more than just mentions in passing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a request to keep the page. I largely wrote the words on it and use the software. Previously rclone redirected to the rsync page and it was to correct that I set up a new page. I thought I was still in the sandbox but chasing the rsync redirect took me out unawares - hence the then holding text that attracted so much attention. Rclone is not rsync, it does not use rsync. It does not belong as a redirect to rsync. Rclone is widely used. I provide above references to hpc research units using it. I provide references above to hackers using it to attack banking systems. In between are the multitute of ordinary people using it, like so much notable software, for dull stuff. Exceptionally for software doing such dull stuff, and from public funds rather than developer promotion rclone has been subject to real academic evaluation. It is there in the abstract and there in the method and there in the results and there in the conclusion. The Kentucky paper is not a reference in passing.^[1] Ed1964 (talk) 09:41, 9 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. Consensus is now clear. A potential rename is a discussion for another noticeboard. BD2412 T 00:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 novel bunyavirus outbreak[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS this is a potentially emerging outbreak but reliable sources are not available. No medical references are provided and it's not clear that this is notable or even considered an outbreak or isolated cases of illness. If it is a notable outbreak it will be reported rapidly by the medical press. We can wait for that. There are several claims in the article that absolutely require MEDRS. It is disappointing this article was created prior to reliable sources confirming the reports such as the Chinese CDC or the WHO PainProf (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PainProf (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is on the verge of development and I propose this title to be changed as 2020 novel Tick-borne virus outbreak. Abishe (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRAFTIFY or Delete. The story may develop into something that should have an article, or it may not. At present, the WP:LEAD outright states that this is based on unverified media reports. This obviously needs to be based on WP:MEDRS for all the medical claims, and right now these seem to simply not exist. TompaDompa (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Full disclosure @TompaDompa: I edited to state unverified reports, since I couldn't find evidence of official verification and the articles themselves do not cite inherently reliable sources. PainProf (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see. The point still stands that it's too early for this to have an article when there are no WP:MEDRS for what is very clearly a medical article, and since we don't even know if there ever will be any it is not appropriate to keep this in mainspace while waiting for the sources to materialize. TompaDompa (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - For the record: My initial comment was made when the article looked like this. Now, it looks like this. As a result, the reasons for my assessment that this should be deleted have changed somewhat (I made some of the edits between those versions, but that has no impact on this). Most importantly, this edit introduced the claim that this outbreak is caused by SFTS virus, which is a claim that categorically requires WP:MEDRS. Without that, this entire article is a massive WP:SYNTH violation. We absolutely cannot combine sources about the SFTS virus with sources about this outbreak without WP:MEDRS linking the two. TompaDompa (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome which seems to be a more general and longer account of the matter. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This suggestion is a non-starter unless WP:MEDRS confirm that the two articles do indeed deal with the same topic. There is a great risk of unintentional WP:SYNTH by assuming these two things to be one and the same. TompaDompa (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is synthesis not suggested by reliable sources, I would like to see an outbreak report by the WHO or the Chinese CDC stating confirmation of that "link" by molecular testing. I think someone added this because they were annoyed by how much some of the media reports were butchering the nomenclature (a good indication of their unreliability). Its annoying that we can't speedily draftify medical articles like this that don't cite one MEDRS but make bold claims. PainProf (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of whether they prove the same, I think it has become clear that a separate article is justified for the outbreak. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: The original source is a tabloid... All of the reports are based off this. I refer you to our previous discussion of a 2020 outbreak of plague. In the age of coronavirus these outbreaks are being hyped up. Infections of tick viruses are common at this time of year. This journalism is immoral tabloid style at its worst. These stories and this page spread unnecessary fear about an illness that has not been confirmed by any reliable source. We should not be indulging these hacks. Surely the one lesson of the coronavirus should be to trust scientific organisations rather than the media. By not using reliable medical sources we contribute to misinformation. PainProf (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better that we start a page like this, and then decide it was unjustified, in which case we can redirect, than miss something in an area where we are generaly considered the best and most rapid source in theworld, DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – we can't write an article without reliable sources. If reliable sources are found, we can reconsider. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to 2020 SFTS virus outbreak, this has been confirmed to be the SFTS virus and is not a novel virus. This article has multiple sources which states an outbreak has infected at least 60 people, killed 7 and is ongoing in East China.

Haberler, Dis (2020-08-06). "Çin'de şimdi de 'bunyavirüs' alarmı: 7 kişi hayatını kaybetti". CNN Türk (in Turkish). Retrieved 7 August 2020.
The article note (translation error may occur)s:
After the coronavirus epidemic in China, the panic of “bunya virus” has now started. In China, Jiangsu province, a total of 37 people were diagnosed with a disease caused by the new bunia virus spread by ticks.
A total of 37 people in Jiangsu province have been diagnosed this year with SFTS (Severe Fever Thrombocytopenia Syndrome), a disease caused by the new tick virus spread by ticks. It was reported that 23 infected people in Anhui province were also detected. Based on the cases, experts warned that the virus can be transmitted from blood to animal and person to person.
PTI (7 August 2020). "Seven dead, 60 infected by new infectious disease in China: Report". The Indian Express. Retrieved 7 August 2020.
The article notes:
A new infectious disease caused by a tick-borne virus has killed seven people and infected 60 others in China, official media here reported on Wednesday, warning about the possibility of its human-to-human transmission. More than 37 people in East China’s Jiangsu Province contracted with the SFTS Virus in the first half of the year. Later, 23 people were found to have been infected in East China’s Anhui province, state-run Global Times quoted media reports.
A woman from Nanjing, capital of Jiangsu, who suffered from the virus showed onset of symptoms such as fever, coughing. Doctors found a decline of leukocyte, blood platelet inside of her body. After a month of treatment, she was discharged from the hospital. At least seven people have died in Anhui and East China’s Zhejiang province due to the virus, the report said.
SFTS Virus is not a new virus. China has isolated pathogen of the virus in 2011, and it belongs to the Bunyavirus category.
Philipose, Rahel (7 August 2020). "Explained: What is the tick-borne virus spreading in China?". The Indian Express. Retrieved 7 August 2020.
The article notes:
As governments across the world continue to grapple with the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, China — where cases of the deadly infection were first reported — is now facing a new health threat. A disease called Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (SFTS), caused by a tick-borne virus, has killed seven and infected at least 60, setting off alarm bells among health officials in the country. A large number of the cases reported were concentrated in East China’s Jiangsu and Anhui provinces, local media reported. While more than 37 people were diagnosed with SFTS in Jiangsu in the early months of 2020, 23 were later found to be infected in Anhui.
Backhouse, Andrew (7 August 2020). "Novel bunyavirus re-emerges in China". NewsComAu. Retrieved 7 August 2020.
The article notes:
A deadly virus has re-emerged in China, infecting more than 60 people and killing seven. The highly pathogenic, tick-borne novel bunyavirus can lead to thrombocytopenia syndrome. It causes a viral haemorrhagic fever and has re-emerged in rural areas of China. CNA reports that a 65-year-old tea farmer in China’s Jiangsu province recently fell ill with a fever of 40C and a repetitive cough. Beijing-backed Global Times reported 37 people had been diagnosed with thrombocytopenia in the Jiangsu province.
Backhouse, Andrew (2020-08-07). "Deadly novel bunyavirus re-emerges in China". NZ Herald. Retrieved 7 August 2020.
The article notes:
Sheng Jifang, an expert on the novel bunya virus, told the Global Times a patient who had died three years ago later infected 16 people that had contact with the patient's body.
Osborne, Hannah (2020-08-07). "Deadly Tick-Borne Virus That Can Be Transmitted Person-to-Person Reemerges in China". Newsweek. Retrieved 9 August 2020.
The article notes:
A deadly tick-borne virus has reemerged in China, with experts warning it can be transmitted from human to human.According to the state-backed newspaper the Global Times, 37 people in the Jiangsu Province have been diagnosed with Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (SFTS) so far this year. SFTS is a disease caused by bunyavirus. Sheng Jifang, an infectious disease expert with the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, told the newspaper the virus can be spread by ticks and infected animals, and by people via blood, wounds and the respiratory tract.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow this epidemic to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The first three sources are CNN and The Indian Express which are listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as reliable. They mention Sheng Jifang as

A doctor from the first affiliated hospital under Zhejiang University, said that the possibility of human-to-human transmission could not be excluded; patients can pass the virus to others via blood or mucous.

Sheng Jifang has multiple publication on the National Center for Biotechnology Information such as Erratum to: Transmission risk of patients with COVID-19 meeting discharge criteria should be interpreted with caution and Factors Associated With Prolonged Viral RNA Shedding in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 these are not about the SFTS virus, but confirm he is a medical expert of infectious diseases.

The second two are sources should pass WP:RS if listed on sources/perennial as they are subjected to peer review. The last source is a more recent source from Newsweek, also listed on perennial sources as reliable. Historically, epidemics which don't cause death are notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. With at least 60 people infected and 7 deaths this is certainly notable and independent of the previous outbreak of Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome which occured in 2009 and multiple other times until 2017. Far more people were infected this time and died. In comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic, that article was notable by 8 January 2020 when it was in this shape. There were less than 60 confirmed infections of COVID at that time. WP:MEDRS sources did not exist due to the early development of the epidemic and MEDRS is not necessary when covering an ongoing outbreak. The same is going on now, and this epidemic is certainly independently notable of previous occurance of SFTS. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: Source one in that article is indisputably MEDRS, an outbreak report from the World health organisation ... which is when it should be created, the media reports have already died down, and none of these sources meet our standards for medical articles. There is no reliable information linking the outbreaks, at least one reliable medical source is required. PainProf (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it has not been confirmed by any source we consider reliable that this disease is this virus, we don't use the popular press for this kind of thing. They often make mistakes, here there are so many mistakes it is clear the sources are unreliable. The Chinese CDC and the WHO have a good reputation for quickly publishing outbreak reports, for COVID our article was created after the WHO confirmed China's report on Jan 5th, note how accurate and precise a WHO outbreak notification is compared to media reports. Moreover, this was after confirmation by the Wuhan municipal health authority. I see no equivalents here. It's essentially, some doctor says which we have never considered reliable. PainProf (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources so reliability has already been decided in extensive discussions. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are reliable in some contexts, however for an entirely medical article they are not reliable per WP:MEDRS which is a well established policy that applies clearly here. Considering the only non MEDRS claim we can make is that there are reports of an outbreak, there doesn't seem to be much of an article. Also the reports all parrot the Global times which is a tabloid newspaper....PainProf (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an entirely medical article, the one source regarding symptoms and transmission is attributed to Dr. Sheng Jifang. I had noted that the COVID pandemic had an article prior to any deaths or having even 60 infections. This article does not require MEDRS it is about an ongoing outbreak. There are MEDRS sources regarding this virus [3], [4] and [5] all are PubMed or NCBI sources which pass WP:MEDRS and describe the disease and virus. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on you to show they are the same virus, this is exactly why I'm requesting MEDRS for the outbreak, an unreliably sourced statement could easily be incorrect here. It is not confirmed that this is STFS virus until a reputable medical source confirms it. They do this using molecular testing, in an outbreak this is done rapidly, and we would have that information. I don't trust the tabloid media to correctly identify a virus and it is Synth for you to do so. As you can clearly see from the WHO, they routinely issue outbreak reports, but have issued none for this. The only sources that picked it up are marginal, and all based off a source that we shouldn't trust. As you have demonstrated, the person sourced to is not in fact a bunyavirus expert. The name was butchered in many of the reports and no reliable medical authorities have confirmed an outbreak. This page absolutely requires MEDRS before you make a page and for each statement. Please look at our discretionary sanctions for COVID again. PainProf (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I posted above? The onus is on me and I've proved it, now the onus is on you to prove it is not the same virus. I've listed reliable sources which are valid for proving the notability of this outbreak. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you do not seem to understand the difference between WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. The latter is way stricter than the former. The assertion that this is the same virus is a medical claim, and as such requires WP:MEDRS. TompaDompa (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It might be merged to Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome, but the sources above by Valoem show this is probably good as a standalone page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of note after the initial media frenzy in generally unreliable sources, largely tabloids, this story has been completely forgotten already. Of further note a reliable sources entry seems likely to close as deprecation for the source that originated this news - partly because it is seen as unreliable even in China. I further note that the story was never carried by more respectable Chinese outlets, was never confirmed by Chinese authorities or the World health organisation suggesting indeed that this was simply unsubstantiated speculation. PainProf (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems there are enough coverage and enough scope to expand. Nomian (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now there seems to be coverage of the event, and soon enough we can see if it did not amount to anything. Wm335td (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Don't Shoot Portland. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Strickland (blogger)[edit]

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

This is a case where the WP:BLP1E policy applies. The subject is a YouTuber notable only for having pulled a gun on a group of protesters in 2016 and subsequently convicted of crimes relating to this event. Reliable sources have only significantly discussed the subject in relation to this event, the subject's YouTube endeavors are not otherwise notable, and ultimately the event does not appear to have any historical significance. Mz7 (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater@ 20:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Don't Shoot Portland, or keep pending merge into other appropriate topic. WP:BLP1E can't be applied here because the subject fails the 2nd criterion, to be low-profile. As explained at WP:PUBLICFIGURE and Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, he has worked to self-promote, and actively maintains a public profile with a YouTube channel with thousands of subscribers. An argument to delete needs to rest on a broader guideline, rather than one so narrowly defined and specific as BLP1E. WP:SUSTAINED is probably the safest ground: it appears coverage all but ceased after 2016, only getting brief mention in 2019 and 2020 of the conviction appeal. By that guideline the topic should be upmerged to be placed into a broader context, such as into the stub Don't Shoot Portland, aiming for an article with a lot more content about Don't Shoot Portland along with the major the highlights of the Strickland case. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think your points are reasonable, particularly your point about WP:SUSTAINED and how this individual may no longer be considered low-profile as a result of his YouTube channel. To expand on my deletion nomination in light of this, the relevant notability guidelines here are WP:CRIME and WP:ARTIST. The subject of this article clearly has no broader historical significance for either his crime or his YouTube work, and there is a scarcity of coverage of his endeavors outside of the 2016 coverage of his crime. For these reasons, the subject is not notable. I am unopposed to merging some information into the Don't Shoot Portland, but it seems that article is currently a one-line stub, and we should be wary of placing undue weight onto Strickland in that article. Mz7 (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I thought Strickland might become/stay newsworthy but it was 1E. I think Bratland is right, it's worth a single sentence. The fact Don't Shoot is very short is its own problem- perhaps it should be merged to something else. But speaking of Strickland and a single event, it seems appropriate for Don't Shoot. I'm not opposed to a snowball close on this AFD. tedder (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Don't Shoot Portland: Per reasons above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:30, 10 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) 17:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudharies of Ambota[edit]

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

I just declined a G4 speedy deletion on this (you can see my reasoning in the history), but I see no notability at all here. There isn't even any claim of importance and it would probably be an A7 if that extended to families. Essentially all this article is saying is "These were some people and they lived in a place". I am reluctant to take up AFD time, but I think a PROD would almost certainly be reverted, and so we're here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Originally I had created a page "Varya Rajputs & Chaudharies of Ambota". The Chaudharies are one of the prominent surviving Varya families with family members who are recognised globally for the contribution to the field of work they are in. The deletion of the page has made it difficult to link the two aspects of the clan. A clan which is supposed to have been lost but historians are not aware of the existence of the prominent member of the family. Isn't that good information for an encyclopedia? Secondly, I had put up a copy of the original lineage document in Urdu language and the English translation. If there are more members of the clan, then they could have contributed and associated with the page. Unfortunately, the page is now deleted.
British era historians are not permitted to be cited. I understand that if there are 4 clans in question, the historian may discriminate and record incorrect data. In my page, I am citing only about the location and lineage of my clan. Where is the issue about unreliable data? Multiple historians in the current era have cautiously used selective text, so have I. I see no reason why I am being restricted?
A Prof. who has written a 100 papers is being quoted and the same person has sourced information from local authentic records. That too is not permitted. How does one write an article if everything is shot down on some pretext or other Capt.AmitSingh (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from talk page, and formatted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Comment – Please see WP:NOTGENEALOGY. One of the sources cited by you contains just half a sentence about this clan/family. On top of it, that government site is not even a scholarly source. The other non-scholarly source cited by you is a self-published source, which is authored by a non-expert of the field. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went through JSTOR and other academic databases, as well as Google Books and my own shelves, when this subject supposedly formed a part of another article that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Varya_Rajput_and_Chaudharies_of_Ambota. There is nothing about these two communities and what we are seeing in this article and Varya Rajputs (which was also created after that deletion discussion) is a massive house of cards based on poor, often irrelevant sources and others that might in principle be reliable but are not in fact obviously discussing the subject of the article. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - zero evidence of notability; basically a way of recreating an article that has only just been deleted Spiderone 16:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater@ 20:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and not verifiable per nom and the research of Sitush. --Lockley (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since the article creator has blanked the page, is this now eligible for a speedy delete? Spiderone 21:51, 9 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) 17:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Juice Station[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No credible citations are available. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Was nominated for deletion once but no consensus was reached. Could not find coverage in multiple reliable sources.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 16:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find reliable sources Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 18:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a promotional stub that lacks enough proper sourcing to establish notability.TH1980 (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:12, 10 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. Noting the copyvio concern on ja.wiki. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shining Soriana[edit]

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

Nothing could be found searching for STU48 and "Shining Soriana" or "Shinano Sorahana". Some sources when looking for Stu48 and Soraha, but not a lot and nothing really reliable. Best I could find was a fandom page for Shinano Soraha, which states that she participated in one A-side of a single so far, and a few B-sides. Article as it stands is basically an unsourced BLP, but could well be a notable subject which is badly transliterated or only mentioned in Japanese language sources, so wider scrutiny (through AfD) is invited.

Normally a redirect from a member to a band would be good practice, but as this is apparently the wrong name, and this band seems to have about 50 members anyway, a simple delete may be better. Fram (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable member of STU48 (at least yet) - plus add a redirect from Soraha Shinano (her actual name) to STU48. --Prosperosity (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable member of a musical group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as could not find much coverage at all, reliable or unreliable, does not pass WP:GNG on the given name and if the name is wrong then the article may be badly translated so it's best to delete, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This might be an attempt to at a WP:MACHINETRANSLATION of the Japanese Wikipedia article ja:信濃宙花. This is only a guess based on something similar that this article's creator tried to do at Beni Takemata. The Japanese article has been flagged as possible copyvio, which means that any translation of it would also be considered a possible copyvio and need to be cleaned up even if it turns out that the subject is Wikipedia notable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 11 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 15:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PushEngage[edit]

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

Straightaway PR/Advertising WP:PROMO. Lack of credible third-party citations. Currently, most of its news coverage comes from paid/sponsored media and PR sites. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing adds up to WP:ORGCRIT. Normal mentions and press release but nothing in-depth.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think an article on Ravi Trivedi might pass WP:BASIC if it was created (something Nitin.35 might research and consider), then some of this content could go there, but this article doesn't have sources that cover the topic directly and in detail to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT and it's too WP:PROMO. // Timothy :: talk 03:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 08:23, 14 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 15:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Foy[edit]

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

Created by SPA, and despite being here for some time still fails WP:AUTHOR. Some book reviews but nothing substantial about the person to be found. Biographical details are attributed to "his books' biographies," the analytical riffs are attributed to no one despite a tag asking for more sources since 2011, and despite some editing over the years it reads like an autobiography. I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, as required by GNG. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our actual notability guidelines for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom. I wanted to add that in addition to this article being created by the SPA User:Jwnyc3 , the only substantive contributions were by no fewer than four other SPAs, User:Zebediah.tilton, User:Timmyod and User:Skidm, and User: Fumiste~enwiki whose contributions were confined to this article. It reads like an autobiography because it is an autobiography. Coretheapple (talk) 12:40, 8 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 15:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walnut Knowledge Solutions[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A promotional attempt WP:PROMO. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article meets WP:PROMO but does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Sources either do not meet WP:RS or do not address the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 03:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 08:24, 14 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) 17:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soliton Technologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Soliton Technologies Inc.

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

Straightaway PR/Advertising WP:PROMO Most of its citations are from press releases sites. Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I doubt there's enough qualifying coverage out there to allow the company to meet WP:NCORP, but even if I am wrong, the article in its current state clearly falls within WP:NOTPROMO. --Dps04 (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Press release pretending to be an article WP:PROMO. // Timothy :: talk 03:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non notable organization as they fall short of WP:ORG. Celestina007 08:58, 13 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 15:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RoomsTonite[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No third-party credible citations are available, lack WP:SIGCOV. Hatchens (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:SIGCOV. Sources do not address the subject directly and in-depth or are promotional. // Timothy :: talk 04:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 18:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Hansen Lassetter[edit]

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

Biography of dubious notability. The individual is a university dean who holds a few qualifications. Even the article's creator is unsure if the person is notable ("might meet point 3 (of WP:PROF)", etc). An unreferenced BLP of a (non-notable) living person. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep being the dean is not sufficient for noteability. However, being a fellow of an academic association such as American Academy of Nursing probably is, see https://www.aannet.org/about/fellows "The American Academy of Nursing's approximately 2,400 fellows are nursing leaders in education, management, practice and research." --hroest 18:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"..probably is.."? It either meets the notability requirements, or it does not. If it's the former, please can you link me to the relevant notability guidelines? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment C2 from WP:NACADEMIC is the relavent guideline, but what's not clear to me is how "highly selective" this specific one is. If she was an "Honorary Fellow" or "Living Legend" I'd be more inclined to say keep. There's also C6 to consider as she's president of two institutions, but again I'm not sure if they are "major academic institution"s. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment was this accidentally published in this anemic state? I recall that the creator of the article has stressed for the need for all articles to go through AfC so the encyclopedia doesn't end up with articles like this one. Perhaps the creator would like to draftify until he can put together something better. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as is not notable. I looked in Newspapers.com too; the sole non-obituary entry I could find for her (searched married and maiden+married names) was her name in a list of graduates. Delete unless the academic Wikipedians can find something worthwhile in her academic history, like being cited many times. I can't imagine every fellow in an organization is notable. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per David Eppstein below. While these organizations fail to impress notability, she has a fair number of peer-reviewed publications that have been cited. I wish there were a weak weak keep option. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article on her brother H. Reese Hansen is similarly poorly sourced and of dubious notability. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep In contrast to the above comments consider dean of a nursing program to be relatively notable so weak C6, I also consider that the Fellowship is selective but not enough on its own but contributes to the picture - Weak C3 (its not as selective as AAS or FRS etc). Google scholar revealed some publications which are good for the field - Weak C1. Together, I favor inclusion based off meeting three criteria - although weakly. PainProf (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I say good for the field, most nurses don't publish, or publish very few papers I found 20 in PubMed, 13 of which I consider her to be a major contributor too, as first or last author, for the field of nursing I consider this to be an uncommonly good record, which explains why she has been appointed dean. PainProf (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:PROF as a Fellow of the American Academy of Nursing which is a "major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor." TJMSmith (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a clear pass as being a fellow of the American Academy of Nursing. There is also the fact that the nominator has failed to post a notice of this on my talk page, which is one of the required steps in posting an AfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am really torn about this. If the 2400 is the current number of fellows of the American Academy of Nursing I am doubting that being a fellow is a sign of notability. People seem to be ignoring though her possible strongest claims to notability. It is not in being a dean of one nursing schools, but of heading the International Family Nursing Association and in being head of the Western Institute of Nursing. That is what we really should be looking at. However on further research the first uses International because it focuses on getting nurses to look at the whole world population, and seems to be a mainly US based onganization with little attention yet in scholarly circles. It has only existed since 2004 or so. The Western Institute of Nursing has existed for 63 years. It started our as the Western Council on Higher Education in Nursing under the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. I may have been too quick to assign more meaning and influence to these groups than they deserve, here is a 50th anniversary article on the Western Institute for Nursing ^[2] This position makes her the leader in the matter of nursing for one of the 4 regional accredidation councils in the US. It was heading this organization or heading the International Family Nursing Association that I was invoking in citing criteria c6, not being a dean at a nursing school. That is the argument for c6. To me the biggest question is do profession specfic heads for regional accedidation organizations pass c6, or not, something that no one has even tried to discuss yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

You have shown that you either don't understand the notability requirements of this subject area, or think it's OK to create an article that is non-notable. Considering your poor recent history with prods and the wave of delete votes at AfD you cast, this is another sign of WP:CIR. And to clarify a point you made, albeit now crossed out, it is not a requirement to post a notice on your talkpage about an AfD. WP:AFD clearly states - "Consider letting the authors know on their talk page..." (my emphasis). I considered doing it. I didn't do it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — A single criterion from the PROF SNG been satisfied is sufficient enough for any individual in question to possess a stand alone article & as it so happens, the subject of our discussion does indeed satisfy at least one criterion from WP:PROF. #3 to be precise. Celestina007 19:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The one paper I could see the h-index # for was... 1, which is even smaller than that of the thesis of yours truly. If someone more familiar with checking these things would investigate, I'm waiting on the edge of my seat. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try this and then check citations at Dimensions. PainProf (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per PainProf's comments. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've spent a long time considering this one. She just about meets C2 and C3 of WP:NACADEMIC. This tips her over the edge into keep territory for me. Fiddle Faddle 11:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Subject meets C2 and C3 of WP:NACADEMIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ch1p the chop (talk • contribs) 14:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep despite the extreme temptation of treating this as its article creator would for any AfD of a non-BYU and non-theology academic and leaving a boilerplate delete comment regardless of actual notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed personal discussion not relevant to AfD. Please take that to individual talk pages
Your personal attack is not at all justified. Engaging in such personal attacks on other people undermines the functioning of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] For example I created the article on Theodore H. Okiishi, who was an academic at Iowa State University in engineering. I could come up with other articles I have created that clearly are "non-BYU, non-theology academics".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Please work on your reading comprehension skills. David Eppstein said how you'd vote in an AfD, not what you have in the past created. Geez. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps I should have left it worded as I originally did, with "non-LDS" instead of "non-theology". Okiishi is LDS. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] This is also a bold faced lie. I have created article on academics who were not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I recently voted to keep on a Naga college president, a person who in no way was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, This whole threatening to delete articles to punish the creator is a very bad proposed actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] OMG, JPL. Find someone who can read to you. No one is talking about what you've created. No one threatened to delete anything. You're digging yourself a hole. Quit while you're only this far below ground. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed personal discussion not relevant to AfD. Please take that to individual talk pages

- Your personal attack is not at all justified. Engaging in such personal attacks on other people undermines the functioning of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - For example I created the article on Theodore H. Okiishi, who was an academic at Iowa State University in engineering. I could come up with other articles I have created that clearly are "non-BYU, non-theology academics".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please work on your reading comprehension skills. David Eppstein said how you'd vote in an AfD, not what you have in the past created. Geez. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps I should have left it worded as I originally did, with "non-LDS" instead of "non-theology". Okiishi is LDS. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        This is also a bold faced lie. I have created article on academics who were not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I recently voted to keep on a Naga college president, a person who in no way was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, This whole threatening to delete articles to punish the creator is a very bad proposed actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        OMG, JPL. Find someone who can read to you. No one is talking about what you've created. No one threatened to delete anything. You're digging yourself a hole. Quit while you're only this far below ground. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Happy to withdraw this now. Hopefully Lambert has learned that creating stuff like this isn't the best way to start an article. Maybe work on your sourcing next time. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:58, 11 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 15:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commedus Interruptus[edit]

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

A theater troupe that doesn't seem to have done anything particularly notable, other than have several people who went on to become somewhat notable (mostly as SNL members). The only SIGCOV that I found in a BEFORE search was in the Daily Trojan, a student newspaper for the University of Southern California (which this troupe is from), not indicative of any sort of significance, and not a particularly reliable source. The only other coverage is brief mentions in articles about some former members (who are notable for other work). This is nowhere near enough coverage to meet GNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a college improv group. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:56, 8 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Dover Athletic F.C. season[edit]

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

Playing non-league football so fails WP:NSEASONS. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Almost all previous AfDs on National League seasons have ended in delete. See recent examples like this or this (and all the other previous AfDs referenced in that one). Number 5 7 12:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and N57. Giant Snowman 14:28, 7 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. czar 04:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Whitford Bond[edit]

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

NN person, fails the GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTINHERITED. Article entirely sourced (and almost word-for-word copied) from his obituary. No other significant coverage from reliable sources found, save for namedrops and casual mentions. Notability tagged for over ten years. Possible COI issues with the article creator, a namesake with an unfortunately long history of creating articles on NN subjects, often with copyvios. Ravenswing 00:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 00:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amin note I originally deleted this as G12 (copied from [6]) but that source was published by Yale in 1905 (which I did not notice), which would likely mean it is out of copyright. Thus, AFD is the way to go... Primefac (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Popping this back on the cycle for a full week, since it was deleted quickly after nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Devokewater@ 21:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should not publish verbatim quotes even if they are out of copyright.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 7 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 FC Halifax Town season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as they were playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Almost all previous AfDs on National League seasons have ended in delete. See recent examples like this or this (and all the other previous AfDs referenced in that one). Number 5 7 12:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems somewhat disingenuous, User:Number 57, to mention those, but ignore that previous attempts to delete articles for this team at that level failed - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 F.C. Halifax Town season. Nfitz (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a reply to the same question that you asked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 FC Halifax Town season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reply to why the cherry picking ... but hang on, I was asking User:Number 57 not you. Or is User:REDMAN 2019 an alternate username? Nfitz (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and N57. Giant Snowman 14:28, 7 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) 17:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 FC Halifax Town season[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2013–14 F.C. Halifax Town season

Articles for deletion/2013–14 FC Halifax Town season

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the club was playing in the Conference Premier that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Almost all previous AfDs on National League seasons have ended in delete. See recent examples like this or this (and all the other previous AfDs referenced in that one). Number 5 7 12:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But why ignore that this article was previously at AFD, and wasn't deleted? Nfitz (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: the result of that AFD was "No consensus" and the reason that people were saying to keep it was because back then, 5th tier football club season articles were considered notable whereas nowadays they aren't. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point though - it's cherry picking to find examples of deletion, and ignore examples from the SAME CLUB that didn't involve deletion. Nfitz (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is. The article is not notable and under the same rules that we have right now it would have been deleted back then as well. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To look at it another way. What reason is there to keep the article? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea - haven't even looked for notability. I was asking about the cherry-picking. Rules haven't changed as far as I recall ... but remember that Wikipedia generally does not employ hard-and-fast rules. Nfitz (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that back then 5th tier football club season articles were accepted. The current consensus is that they are not, which is why this article was AFD'ed in the first place. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and N57. Giant Snowman 17:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2017 Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference football season. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Slippery Rock football team[edit]

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

Individual results for a college football team are not inherently notable, and there’s no evidence of substantial, reliable, independent sources to help meet WP:GNG Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge certainly as written the article needs more sourcing to make a call, and if that's its final state the nominator is correct. I think what we should do here is more of an editing-preference, which would be to combine several articles in question into a more concise and easily sourced article. Suggestions include 2017 Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference football season (which already exists) or Slippery Rock football or Slippery Rock athletics. There's call for inclusion of the material, but I think that we need to make an editing decision here and not a deletion issue. This goes for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Shippensburg Raiders football team as well.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2017 Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference football season per Paul. Not finding the same level of coverage here as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Shippensburg Raiders football team. Merging seems reasonable. Cbl62 (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further, there are about 10 articles that could be merged into 2017 Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference football season. See also 2017 Edinboro Fighting Scots football team, 2017 California Vulcans football team, 2017 Cheyney Wolves football team, 2017 Lock Haven Bald Eagles football team, 2017 Millersville Marauders football team, 2017 Bloomsburg Huskies football team, 2017 Kutztown Golden Bears football team. Cbl62 (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Some coverage but I think a merge is probably the best option here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:13, 8 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. The article meets WP:GNG as highlighted in the discussions (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Shippensburg Raiders football team[edit]

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

Results for a college sports team are not inherently notable, and there is no evidence of reliable, independent, substantial coverage to pass WP:GNG Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ for same logic at similar nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Slippery Rock football team.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Generally not in favor of season articles for routine Division II seasons, but WP:BEFORE indicates that Shippensburg actually receives significant coverage in multiple news outlets across Pennsylvania (a sprinkling of that coverage now added). I came to this AfD expecting to support deletion, but I'm leaning the other way now. Undecided and holding off for on voting for now. Cbl62 (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know the notability guidelines for D2 football seasons, but I'd think this would meet GNG. Some sourcing: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would argue that these indicate notability for the team, or for the league, but not for a page dedicated to the results of a 2nd division college team for each year. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cardiffbear88: The question at hand is not whether there should be a page dedicated to "each year" of Shippensburg football. Rather, the question is limited to the 2017 team and whether this article in particular passes WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike the Slippery Rock AfD, the depth of coverage here (examples now added to the article) is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. I still do not support season articles for routine Division II seasons, but this one warrants a stand-alone article given the depth of coverage and other factors including coach winning coach of year honors, seven players receiving first-team all-PSAC East honors, and the team advancing the NCAA Division II playoffs. Cbl62 (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- changed to Keep - no objection, good research.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:01, 7 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Encorps Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the issues that led to its deletion last July (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encorps Drum and Bugle Corps) have been resolved. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Although I doubt that I will have any effect on the decision to delete it, I will try to save this corps from deletion. While I look at last year’s deletion, I see that you say that they were feature in one article in a drum and bugle magazine. Well it wasn’t a magazine that I can find but this article ^[1] I found from the official Drum Corps International Website which is the Marching Music’s Major League^[2] and Drum Corps International has been around since 1972. Ok then that’s one article that they got approved. In that same article, they show tour dates for the 2019 season, but they could just be shows that aren’t archived with scores or anything. However, they do have scores with scores for Encorps. These scores are taken straight from Drum Corps International’s website^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7].

Now when you Google search “encorps,” you find items about STEM programs in schools. While yes, searching “encorps” only may not bring up the drum and bugle corps first, you can also search up “encorps drum and bugle corps” and it will bring up the drum corps. You can even search up “encorps dci” and find more info from the encorps. Here are some videos on youtube from both seasons of encorps^[8]^[9]. Now are they the best videos? No but are they videos from shows that encorps marched and competed in? Yes.

Now onto the information in the wikipedia article. Is there not much there? Yes. However, the point of wikipedia is to edit and continue to add more information as we find it. The start may seem small but the drum and bugle corps community can find plenty of information to make the article bigger. This corps was small and only competed in few competitions but they had big dreams that Drum Corps International even said they couldn’t do. If they competed this season (baring that COVID-19 pandemic didn’t happen), they wanted to come and compete at Drum Corps International Open Class Championships in Marion, IN. However, Drum Corps International thought that they wouldn’t be financially stabled following that approach. That’s exactly what happened to Coastal Surge Drum and Bugle Corps from South Carolina in 2015. Coastal Surge competed at Drum Corps International Championships in 2014 and folded the following year. However, that corps that was short lived did exist and has proof of their existence and so did Encorps.

I know I can’t probably sway anyone’s opinion in this but I now have tried to use the best information for me being in a drum corps community that’s caring and open to all corps. " Trasher2020 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delet - lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. - Whpq (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Independent, reliable sources do not include YouTube. Ifnord (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trasher2020 is passionate in his advocacy, but lacked one element: any valid grounds to keep the article. YouTube and Facebook are not reliable sources, and the DCI is a primary one. Aside from a GNG fail, Wikipedia is not a web host. Ravenswing 07:21, 15 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) 17:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paper or Plastic (musical)[edit]

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

So blatantly self-promotional. The work has just had a reading, and none of the references appear to be reliable independent sources. At best, WP:TOOSOON Boneymau (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A near-orphan with no significant coverage. No evidence of notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be WP:TOOSOON with insufficient secondary coverage at this stage to pass WP:GNG. Once it's opened and if it gets reviewed in reliable sources then it could probably be included. There is also the WP:COI problem as the article has been created by the writer of the play, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable independent source and seems to be WP:TOOSOON. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:56, 13 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 to delete. A potential merge to Dukagjini family can be proposed and discussed separately on the talk page. BD2412 T 21:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Dukagjini[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I have nothing to add to the case for deletion made at the 2016 discussion which resulted in delete. ‘ No multiple reliable sources that proves this principality ever existed. The article is WP:CFORK of Dukagjin highlands populated by many different tribes and people with no supreme rule in period in question. The only somewhat reliable source used in the article is authored by non-historian Mortimer Sellers. A couple of works of Albanian historiography were also mentioned in the article, without provided quotes. Unless multiple reliable sources are provided to prove this territory was actually a state in period in question (14th and 15th century) the article should be deleted.‘ Mccapra (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are way more sources that can be added to this topic and the page can be definitely expanded, there are recorded documents that the Dukagjini family has been ruling during this period and obviously there may be some lack of evidence but coming up with the conclusion that the principality didn't exist at all is just absurd Dardania0 (talk|)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no offence, but the filer clearly does not know much about this topic. First of all, it was not a "state" in the modern sense but a feudal holding. Second, there is plenty of bibliography referring to this entity. Third, yes most of this bibliography comes out of Albania -- but also Greece -- but there are plenty after the communist period and published in Western or otherwise non-Albanian journals so the sneering about "Albanian historiography" is a bit overdone. [12] [13][14][15] et cetera. --Calthinus (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I will note that a majority of delete votes on the previous deletion discussion were made by now permabanned sockpuppets -- Zoupan and Tiptoethroughtheminefield, both of which are members of particularly egregious sockfarms (Ajdebre and Meowy) -- hence invalid. --Calthinus (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, the only other delete vote in that discussion is also a sockpuppet of Trampton. Great. So every delete vote was a sock. --Calthinus (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi filer here. No offence taken. It’s true that I have no knowledge of this topic, but AfD isn’t determined by what I know, but by whether there are sufficient reliable independent sources to support an article. There aren’t. I came across this at new page review, and saw that it was a recreation of an article deleted in 2016 and it appears to have been recreated without any improvement in sourcing. When I go to the main source provided, Mortimer Sellers, I find that this source does not mention the term ‘Principality of Dukagjini’ or indeed talk about anything other than the development of a local legal code. I look next at the other source provided, which is a scholarly publication dating back to the era of Enver Hoxha, and therefore not necessarily reliable, and as far as I can tell makes a single passing mention of the term ‘principata a Dukagjineve’ – there may be more as some of the content is hidden in a google search. I did a search online myself and found various passing references to individual members of the Dukagjini family, but none whatever to a ‘principality’. Turning to the sources provided in this deletion discussion:

1. ‘Gunpowder tools in the village Guri i Bardhë in the province of Mat’, so a completely different topic, with one passing reference to ‘Albanian principalities such as: Tanush Dukagjini (1417), Lek Zaharia (1417), and a few more.’ As Tanush was a person and not a ‘principality’ it is not even clear that the author has used the correct English word, so this is pretty shaky.

2.I can’t downlaod to read, but there is no reference to a ‘Principality of Dukagjini’ in the abstract, and the topic seems to be, as with Mortimer Sellers, the development of traditional law.

3.Is a thesis about this region, but once again does not mention a ‘Principality of Dukagjin’ anywhere – indeed the topic of the thesis is to do with the Ottoman administration of this region, centuries after the alleged principality existed.

4.Makes a single reference to a single individual, Gjergj Dukagjini, but again, no mention at all of a principality. This is despite the fact the topic of the paper, ‘‘The Ottoman Advance and Consolidation in Epiros and Albania During the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries’, would be exactly where you would expect to find some discussion of a principality.

So overall there is nothing I see that looks like significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, and the 2016 deletion nomination was correct that this 'article is WP:CFORK of Dukagjin highlands'. Mccapra (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible for it to be a CFORK by category error for a geographical page because the page is about a political entity that is defined politically -- not geographically. It's a significant one as Peterkingiron has noted below -- its rulers were the source of the Kanun of Leke Dukagjini, which still operates today (rather unfortunately...). And let's be very clear: it wasn't really a principality, this is bad translation. It was a feudal holding that for the most part was held by a family that was usually vassalized to the larger state entities in the region (variously in different periods Ottomans, Serbia, etc....). --Calthinus (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep or at worst Merge to Dukagjini family -- I know little of this subject, but this does not seem to be a pure invention. Accordingly, I cannot support plain deletion. We are concerned with a period when a ruler might well be a vassal of another ruler. I suspect we are also dealing with a situation where historical sources are not local chronicles, but those of competing foreign powers - the Ottomans and Venetians. This means that the question of who ruled and how much sovereignty they had is not as simple as with modern states. The ruler of a vassal state (and the state itself) may well be notable. We have articles on two of the alleged rulers, one of whom was notable enough to promulgate a law code Kanuni i Lekë Dukagjinit. This suggests some level of rule. The article is certainly not adequately sourced, but that does not mean that it is rubbish. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wanted to get involved with the article throughout the week but I had no free time to do so until today. There are verifiable sources, but they use many different names because in primary documents its rulers didn't use a particular title for their domains. In Albanian historiography, it is referred to as zotërimet (domain) not principata (principality).--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. I'm having difficulty verifying the sources. In Imber (2019), there is no mention at all of Dukagjini. Malaj (2016) appears to be privately-published original research. Fine (1994), literally mentions the family once, in a single sentence. Trnavci (2010), mentions the Dukagjini family half a dozen times over two pages, but never once as a principality or any other legal entity. There's evidence this family existed, but not any actual state nor their titles of nobility. Nobility are not automatically notable, and we need to verify that a state existed. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dukagjini family. Substantial portion of the article is about the family, not the principality. Article doesn't contain the type of information a reader would expect about a region, such as is found at Principality of Kastrioti. It could also have a listing created here Albanian principalities, an article which could use some clean up. // Timothy :: talk 16:48, 8 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) 17:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Prinz von Hohenzollern[edit]

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

Member of a former royal house with no other claim to notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Google finds lots of namechecks in sites of varying reliability - mainly directories and society pages - but nothing that supports a substantive claim to notability. Professionally, he's a civil engineer / architect, but there's no sign of notability in this field. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non --Devokewater @ 10:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , no indication of notability. Smeat75 (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete members of royal houses deposed decades before the person was born do not have automatic notability, and there are no other signs of notability for this individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Marginal tabloid coverage (if that) is not sufficient for an encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikołaj Kwietniewski[edit]

hav:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Subsub about a Polish soccer player, about to be deleted from Polish Wikipedia for not meeting pl wiki equivalent of WP:NSPORT. How about English Wikipedia? Are we more inclusive? I have trouble parsing the relevant criteria of WP:NFOOTY... Comments by experts appreciated. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NFOOTY by playing 21 games in the Ekstraklasa and Liga I. Nominator should have understood the criteria before nominating. Just because he currently isn't notable on the Polish Wiki (which bases notability on playing x number of games in leagues on the IFFHS's Best League list) doesn't mean he isn't notable on the English Wiki. Dougal18 (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdaw. Yet another example how NFOOTY is broken, I guess :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Broken" is a guideline that has arbitrary numbers of games played in leagues on arbitrary cutoffs of the IFFHS Best League list. Dougal18 (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually... so what? NFOOTY is just a supplementary suggestion. He fails NBIO and GNG. It's time to clean up such one liners sport spam entries. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the NSPORT criteria may be met, this is a player would have a career that should be readily searchable on the Internet (Poland is well-connected), and I have come up with nothing beyond the fact they are signed onto a team. This means that the presumption of notability granted by NSPORT/NFOOTY (playing on a professional team) did not yield additional sources, and thus has failed, per WP:N. We need secondary and third-party sources to show this person should have a standalone article beyond just assertion of NFOOTY here. --Masem (t) 14:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, the best I found is this tiny news flash on a local/niche Polish site: [16]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, come on... Yurek88 (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets NFOOTBALL, young player at start of his career, there are sources out there. Giant Snowman 14:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY subject is 21 years old and activly playing see little point in deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as per users above, clearly meets NFOOTY. Here's an entire archive of articles about him from one site, a video profile from another, a couple more articles...there are sources out there. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As a caution, of the first link, maybe only 2 of those articles are actually usable as they provide significant coverage of the person, the others are just mentioning the name in passing which doesn't work for sourcing purposes. But now that these are identified, they need to be added to the article. --Masem (t) 13:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above comments, this guy passes both NFOOTY and GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets both NFOOTY and GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if he is a young player at the start of his career who has done nothing of note, we should hold off on creating an article until he actually does something of note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: do you ever actually look at any of the articles you vote on, read anyone else's arguments or conduct WP:BEFORE? It appears to me that you vote delete on every article regardless of the notability guidelines. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely not true. I vote to keep when it is warranted, and in this case keeping is not warranted. Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive directory. People are supposed to only be included when they have actually done things to gain notability, not when they have just barely started a career.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this article passes both the relevant notability guidelines (WP:FOOTY and WP:GNG). He has played in the top tier of Polish football and has recieved significant coverage from reliable secondary sources as a result. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:34, 11 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 Starship Troopers (franchise). (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Starship Troopers characters[edit]

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

I've redirected it before, but that was undone. Well, AfD I suppose. A huge, huge list of characters from the Starship Troopers franchise, which includes a novel, OVA, a film series and animated series. Everything is completely in-universe, no actual encyclopedic information, i.e., creation, development, reception. There isn't a single reference and a quick Google search brings up plenty of reliable sources that discuss the themes of Starship Troopers, but not the characters. Suitable for a ~~wikia~~ Fandom page, not Wikipedia. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (unless someone can provide more encyclopedic information with reference): Well, at least there is a reason(s) now and I agree with them (creation, development, and reception, which I am not sure if there will be any to be added by other editors). I undid the edit because nobody brought up the problems of the page in talk page. (At least there has to be a heads-up before a major rework, including redirect.)

I think parts of them can be relocated/integrated into respective pages. For examples, some of the major characters from the novel, like Juan Rico, Sergeant Zim, and Jean Dubois, can be briefly mentioned in the section like "Main characters". --TX55^TALK 15:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per nom. Agreed that most of the sources are focused more on the political themes of Starship Troopers without really focusing in on the characters, which do not meet the general notability guideline. Jontesta (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT Starship Troopers (franchise) already has the the chart at the bottom of this page. Most of the characters aren't listed as being in more than one thing(anime, films, etc)., so any information about them can be in the article for that thing. Dream Focus 18:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect as a topic that has insufficient coverage in third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 04:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island (North Carolina)[edit]

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

Non-notable unincorporated community. Many other notable communities in the county don't have their own page so I question why this one in particular needs one. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this particular unincorporated community used to be a town with textile mills, but it was destroyed to create Lake Norman.[17][18][19][20] The locale also has an airfield and marina.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eostrix's good point. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree, can be salvaged Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 10:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aren't unincorporated communities automatically notable if proof of their existence can be found?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I probably worded it wrong but I know I've seen a statement similar to what I made.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, found it. WP:GEOLAND. I am interpreting the first section as applying to Long Island. It does, or did, have a post office.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters to this discussion , but in the US, before Rural Free Delivery there were post offices in all sorts of unlikely places, including people's homes, because you had to go to the post office to pick up your mail. There are numerous examples of post offices in railroad stations with no other buildings around, as well as at farmhouses and stores. It doesn't ,mean there was anything else there. Mangoe (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This post office still existed when I lived near there in the 1980s.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said "not that it matters in this case". In general, existence of a current post office is a reliable indication of a settlement, and this place has other historical information showing it to be a town. I just wanted to make sure that people understood that a post office need not be in a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said what I did hoping the post office was evidence, but with recent closings, I think they may have closed that one recently.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep The current state of the article is the kind of lazy shit that drives the placenames cleanup crew crazy, as someone just dumped the thing in from GNIS, and then whoever put the important historical part in didn't bother to update anything else. But the one reference makes it clear there was a town here, with a history. I imagine one could even get census figures for it. Mangoe (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that. It was important to get the basic information in place and I knew how to do that. But there's obviously more that can be added.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I made some cleanups including changing the raw links to citations, maybe someone will flesh out the article? According to the BGN Subject Folders on the GNIS page, it had a post office. Note that there are differing opinions about post offices and notability. Cxbrx (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can do some of the work on this. I used to live nearby, but that's just why I'm interested.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is questionable, because it says Long Island is in Mecklenburg County, which it isn't. I'll have to find something better.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think the article looks much better now.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention page numbers were not provided with the books, but since they are online, the search function will show the pages.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I always think it's good to open a discussion about questionable content. The page is looking a lot better now and that wouldn't have been possible with out this : ). Why? I Ask (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Long Island, North Carolina.Djflem (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Djflem I just looked at the disambiguation page. Most of the articles had this style but they weren't towns, so I see you were right.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep historical significance. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:22, 11 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. The keep vote be low-participation editor Sv72 is given little weight. A sheer volume of media mentions does not overcome the consensus that coverage of this subject is PR or otherwise unusable to show notability. No prejudice against refunding to draft if better coverage in independent reliable sources can be found and incorporated. BD2412 T 21:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pramati Technologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

the company profile in Wikipedia. there is nothing to write about this one and non-notable enough for now. Intentions and purpose are clearly to make wiki presence. Light2021 (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Extended content
"Pramati Technologies Is Ready To Take On Goliath". InformationWeek. 2002-03-28. Retrieved 2020-06-21. `((cite magazine))`: `\|archive-date=` requires `\|archive-url=` (help) The article includes analysis from an analyst: In trying to break into the midmarket, Pramati will compete against some major high-tech companies, including Hewlett-Packard, which is giving away a basic version of its application server. "It's a small company that says they're going to compete on price, but how are you going to compete with IBM for example on price?" Illuminata analyst James Governor asks. "IBM could give it away until the cows come home." Pramati's success will depend on whether it can partner with large distributors and resellers and convince some major independent software vendors to bundle the application server with their products. In addition, Pramati's tools are going to have to be substantially easier to use, a challenge given the fact that J2EE is known as a difficult platform. Sangwan, Sujata (2017-06-07). "Pramati Technologies - Making Products and Delivering Services for Building the Agile Enterprise". Businessworld. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21. Taft, Darryl K. (2002-03-18). "An Alternative App Server". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21. Rapoza, Jim (2004-02-16). "Pramati Eases Web App Development". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21. Khare, Ankit (2003-04-03). "Pramati Server 3.0". PCQuest. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21. Khare, Ankit (2002-10-28). "Build Java Apps". PCQuest. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21. Harbaugh, Logan (2002-04-25). "Does Pramati Server Live Up to Its Name?". Serverwatch.com. QuinStreet. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21. Parthasarathy, Anand (2007-03-07). "Pramati Technologies 'marries' Web to desktop". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21. Gajjala, Venkataramana (2006). "The Role of Information and Communication Technologies in Enhancing Processes of Entrepreneurship and Globalization in Indian Software Companies". The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries. 26 (1). Wiley: 12–13. doi:10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00170.x. The article has a section titled "Pramati Technologies". The article notes: Pramati Technologies Private Limited (PTPL), one of the Red Herring 100 Private Companies of Asia, headquartered in Hyderabad, India was incorporated in 1998 with seed capital from the likes of Citigroup and Intel Capital. PTPL is a global provider of Java software development technology (an end-to-end Enterprise Java platform vendor) with offices in New York, San Jose, Hong Kong, Singapore and London. After winning some key customers in India it aggressively marketed its products – the Pramati Server 4.1 (an application server) and the Pramati Studio 3.5 (component development lifecycle tools) – to global companies like CitiGroup, Ericsson, and Standard Chartered Bank and ended up winning by being price-competitive and by providing inexpensive support. According to the company, “Pramati Server is the right choice for small-to-medium businesses and independent software vendors, who need fully standards compliant application server platform that provides classic enterprise-class features, scalability and performance demonstrated through industry-standard benchmarks”^{11: http://www.pramati.com/index.jsp?id=corporate} The articles includes information from the founder. Shariff, Mohd (2007-04-16). "Software services: the next frontier". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2009-12-07. Retrieved 2009-12-07.

Extended content

"Pramati Technologies Is Ready To Take On Goliath". InformationWeek. 2002-03-28. Retrieved 2020-06-21. ((cite magazine)): |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)
The article includes analysis from an analyst:
In trying to break into the midmarket, Pramati will compete against some major high-tech companies, including Hewlett-Packard, which is giving away a basic version of its application server. "It's a small company that says they're going to compete on price, but how are you going to compete with IBM for example on price?" Illuminata analyst James Governor asks. "IBM could give it away until the cows come home." Pramati's success will depend on whether it can partner with large distributors and resellers and convince some major independent software vendors to bundle the application server with their products. In addition, Pramati's tools are going to have to be substantially easier to use, a challenge given the fact that J2EE is known as a difficult platform.
Sangwan, Sujata (2017-06-07). "Pramati Technologies - Making Products and Delivering Services for Building the Agile Enterprise". Businessworld. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Taft, Darryl K. (2002-03-18). "An Alternative App Server". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Rapoza, Jim (2004-02-16). "Pramati Eases Web App Development". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Khare, Ankit (2003-04-03). "Pramati Server 3.0". PCQuest. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Khare, Ankit (2002-10-28). "Build Java Apps". PCQuest. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Harbaugh, Logan (2002-04-25). "Does Pramati Server Live Up to Its Name?". Serverwatch.com. QuinStreet. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Parthasarathy, Anand (2007-03-07). "Pramati Technologies 'marries' Web to desktop". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Gajjala, Venkataramana (2006). "The Role of Information and Communication Technologies in Enhancing Processes of Entrepreneurship and Globalization in Indian Software Companies". The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries. 26 (1). Wiley: 12–13. doi:10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00170.x.
The article has a section titled "Pramati Technologies".
The article notes:
Pramati Technologies Private Limited (PTPL), one of the Red Herring 100 Private Companies of Asia, headquartered in Hyderabad, India was incorporated in 1998 with seed capital from the likes of Citigroup and Intel Capital. PTPL is a global provider of Java software development technology (an end-to-end Enterprise Java platform vendor) with offices in New York, San Jose, Hong Kong, Singapore and London. After winning some key customers in India it aggressively marketed its products – the Pramati Server 4.1 (an application server) and the Pramati Studio 3.5 (component development lifecycle tools) – to global companies like CitiGroup, Ericsson, and Standard Chartered Bank and ended up winning by being price-competitive and by providing inexpensive support. According to the company, “Pramati Server is the right choice for small-to-medium businesses and independent software vendors, who need fully standards compliant application server platform that provides classic enterprise-class features, scalability and performance demonstrated through industry-standard benchmarks”^{11: http://www.pramati.com/index.jsp?id=corporate}
The articles includes information from the founder.
Shariff, Mohd (2007-04-16). "Software services: the next frontier". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2009-12-07. Retrieved 2009-12-07.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pramati Technologies to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Again just COPY-PASTE job and filled the entire AFD with ridiculous comments. is there any point of this? are you reading any of these articles yourself or your strategy is to mislead others by posting entire list of articles so no one can actually read what is written there? tell me any significant coverage analysis from the above links? how on this is called a media covergae? this is typical writing of a corporate profile which you quoted as if its something we should really care about - "Pramati Technologies Private Limited (PTPL), one of the Red Herring 100 Private Companies of Asia, headquartered in Hyderabad, India was incorporated in 1998 with seed capital from the likes of Citigroup and Intel Capital. PTPL is a global provider of Java software development technology (an end-to-end Enterprise Java platform vendor) with offices in New York, San Jose, Hong Kong, Singapore and London". Light2021 (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "one of the Red Herring 100 Private Companies of Asia". - Red Herring is black listed scam which takes money for giving awards to companies. all of the above articles pasted without analysing and even reading it. It is a waste of community time to actually do Cunard work of analysis on each articles and really find some meaning of ridiculous reference Bombing. You have been suggested several times by many people to keep it simple, but still you keep repeating same thing again and again and once again. kindly review this please if this is ok? - David Gerard (talk) Adamant1 (talk) Light2021 (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've collapsed the Cunard-spam again. He stopped doing this after people started speaking of behavioural remedies for this repeated filibustering of AFDs with Googled references and then blankly asserting they were RSes, even when they really obviously weren't with the slightest checking - if this continues, we may have to resort to that - David Gerard (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, commercial spam - Cunard's list of blindly googled sources is, as usual, clearly unchecked and worse than useless - David Gerard (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I find Cunard's work very useful, and his general technique is one I adopt mysel, though not in such elaborate form: the detailed analysis of sources is what is necessary to make accurate determinations. Like many of us, I do not necessarily agree with his analyses. In fact, in most discussions of this sort I find that many or even most of the sources he considers acceptable are not acceptable for the purpose, and generally other people have the sme opinion, as it seems they do here. Nonetheless, it is extremely valuable that he finds and presents them to us so we can judge them for ourselves. I wish it were possible to do so in all discussions. On some infrequent occasions, one or more of the sources he presents have been enough to change my opinion on the article. (It's rare enough that I usually mention it!). His opinion of what meets WP:NCORP is usually different from the present consensus, and I in particular have worked very long with others to make the present more rigorous consensus. But I think he is entitled to express his own, and I think our discussions are the better and stronger for having his challenges. David Gerard, I almost always agree with you on articles of this sort, but I do not try to hide opinions I disagree with. I advise you to revert your hatting. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: The problem is that most voters are casual participants and do it based on the "existence" of sources. They don't bother to read the sources to determine if they fit the particular notability guidelines. If people even know they exist in the first place. For instance in another AfD a bunch of people voted keep based on the existence of a source that was a letter to the editor. No one bothered to check that it was reliable before they voted. I see it happen all the time with Cunard and the few other editors that do this type of thing.The AfD closer isn't going to check all the sources before doing the close to make sure what people were voting on was legitimate either. Nor should they have to. Maybe it's great for Cunard because the articles get keep like he wants, but it's not for the AfD process. I don't think the few times when it's valuable make up for the multitude of times it clearly isn't either.

Also, I don't want to see notable articles be deleted anymore then anyone else does, but him and the other people who do this rarely save otherwise notable articles. Mostly they just get non-notable articles kept that shouldn't have been by exploiting the ignorance (not in a pejorative way though) of casual keep voters or the articles just get deleted anyway. So there's zero reason he can't just post the few sources he knows are good and leave it at that like everyone else does. It's not like the other sources can't be added to the articles talk page if they would help expand it. People hardly scour closed AfDs for sources to expand articles with anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

before people can analyze sources, they have to find them. To do that, they need to look carefully. Cunard at least does that. As I said, I usually disagree with his judgements, but he provides the material to judge. I want to see all the proposed evidence, and I will evaluate it myself, not have people just post the evidence they think favors their position. In my experience over thirteen years, most afds that go wrong do so because people make snap judgments, and they're as likely to do it one way as the other. (A much more difficult group of errors are keeps or deletes out of prejudice or I like/don't like it). To have productive discussions, you need to have argument, not follow-the-leader. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I'd love to see the evidence that Cunard looks carefully for his sources. It's pretty easy to do a search and copy/paste a bunch of links with the name of whatever the AfD is about into the edit window. Going by the sources he's repeatedly provided it's extremely likely that's what he's doing. There's really only two things he could be doing here. Providing bad sources he hasn't reviewed or he's intentionally providing sources he has reviewed that he knows are bad. There isn't really a third option outside of those for using a letter to the editor as a "reliable" source or calling an article that just says "Pramati Technologies" and nothing else in-depth coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He at least finds them for us to look at. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Adamant1. Cunard comes in, floods an AFD with a wall of text and then insists with ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE that these are FANTASTIC, TOP CLASS sources ... and then half turn out to be obscure semi-vanity books he clearly found in a quick Google Books search, or news articles that are clearly churnalism. Cunard's judgement is bad, and his posting behaviour is obnoxious filibustering - David Gerard (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend Close and Open New AfD This conversation is impossible to follow at this point. It seems to be largely/completely off topic. PainProf (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And put a word count limit on Cunard - David Gerard (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd back that. It would at least stop him posting walls of qoutes. Which I'm sure we can all agree are completely uncessary since people can just read the linked sources to find the pertinent information. Adamant1 (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. I agree that starting this over woulld be the best thing to do at this point. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I Don't Know why this page is nominated, but as stated above in the list it does have sources which are highly reliable, for example The Economic Times (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/pramati-and-iiit-h-join-hands-to-foster-startups/articleshow/58462134.cms), Businessworld (http://bwdisrupt.businessworld.in/article/Pramati-Technologies-Making-Products-and-Delivering-Services-for-Building-the-Agile-Enterprise/07-06-2017-119614/), Business Line (https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/pramati-iiithyderabad-tie-up/article9677391.ece) are sufficient enough to show the notability criteria. Sv72 (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. If somebody wants to fix this mess, the burden is on them. They wave their hands and say there's sources out there, somewhere, and then point to Business Times types of rah-rah stuff that prints any press release that;s sent in. Right now, there are two from the company's own sites, and two sources from the media. This is not a company traded on a stock exchange, so there is likely not a lot available. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, PR Devokewater @ 10:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please focus on the quality of the sources proposed for this topic - discussion about an editor's AfD contribution practices should take place elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Notability clearly exists, with sources independent of the topic. Leave targeted feedback for any quality issues. Ktin (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of fictitious stories in Romance of the Three Kingdoms#Battle of Hulao Pass. Sandstein 11:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hulao Pass[edit]

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

There are insufficient reliable third party sources with substantial coverage to create a notable article that would pass WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. Granted, this is one of the bigger battles in the novels and frequently appears in adaptations, but no less than any other popular element from these novels, and goes without saying when you talk about adaptations of Romance of the Three Kingdoms itself. The events are already proportionately described in other articles about the fiction itself, and the only sources here are really original research explaining that no one could find historicity for this fictional battle. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As written, the article fails WP:NFICTION but the sadly unreferenced Battle_of_Hulao_Pass#Cultural_references section shows promise (which is while a while ago I reviewed this article and didn't PROD/AfD it). Ping User:Andrew Davidson - maybe the Rescue project could take a look at this? Got any Chinese speaking members? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I saw that too. I think this runs back into any adaptation (novel, game, film, comic, live theatre) of a fictional work. Yes, a new adaptation means that every aspect of a fiction's characters, locations, and events now appear in the original AND the adaptation. I don't think that more primary material confers any additional notability to any of the fiction's disparate elements, nor does it give you the kind of sources you'd need to create an encyclopedic article. But I support having articles about the adaptations (games, theatre productions) themselves, and summarizing the fictional details that appear in those adaptations. I also support a check for references in other languages, which could result in an WP:ATD. (But doesn't as of yet). Shooterwalker (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 17:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, a major fictional battle in world literature, the novel itself is one of the Four Classics of Chinese literature (thus nothing to sneeze at). Surprised to find this nominated, and although it may need more cites it is a notable "thing" within the Four Classics. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete granted, this is from one of the most notable works of fiction. But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and there's no sources to write something verifiable with real world context. Battle is already covered at List_of_fictitious_stories_in_Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms#Battle_of_Hulao_Pass and would be an acceptable redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_fictitious_stories_in_Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms#Battle_of_Hulao_Pass. Not an independently-notable narrative from the Romance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:18, 13 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. $Salvio$ 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aliasgar Kalimuddin[edit]

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

Prod was disputed; no third-party coverage indicating how this individual is notable; as far as I can tell, they are a rector or advisor to a spiritual leader, but there's no indication of how that position is notable in itself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regretfully, per nom. None of the sources focus on Kalimuddin, just mentions in passing. The main editor for this article keeps adding in unsourced material for this article which isn't helping. Nearly every article they've created has been moved to draft space for sourcing and notability issues. This is just an example of why. Ravensfire (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (^{🦉 talk} _talk🦉) 19:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Against deletion: I'm the second largest contributor to the page and I've tried hard to source information on Aliasgar Kalimuddin. In readily available online sources, Kalimuddin is mentioned in the passing, but a linked source, Badre Muneer, has a profile on him which has been cited in the article. The magazine issue in question is available for purchase online. With regards to another user flouting Wikipedia policies, that is unfortunate, and it is a constant theme in all their contributions so far. May be they ought to be barred from editing the page rather than them being a reason to delete the page, which has enough sources and material even though it isn't a stellar article or anything. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Badre Muneer is described as a magazine published "for the Dawoodi Bohra Community." As such, it's questionable if that would qualify under WP:SIGCOV. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been nominated for deletion not for notability but for unsourced claims. As for notability, because Kalimuddin is second in command to Mufaddal Saifuddin, that may qualify his page as encyclopedically important enough, though I'm sure it doesn't meet all of Wikipedia's notability criteria (but then again, does it deserve deletion?). Also, I believe context matters: Badre Muneer is one of the few or the only publically published magazine for and by the Dawoodi Bohra community, and so, by extension, it is most likely to profile the leaders within the community, and hence the citation in absence of other sources. Aljamea-tus-Saifiyah library has publications on him and by him that I'm trying to source, but no luck so far.Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For WP:SIGCOV, also see this: Robert McClenon's comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Huzaifa_Mohyuddin: The subject appears to have been the head of a major denomination within Shi'a Islam and should be considered ipso facto notable. (If the guidelines don't provide this notability, the policies should be revised.) Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless I'm missing something, Kalimuddin is not the head of the sect, but rather is one of several deputies to the head. I'd agree that the head of a major sect is ipso facto notable, but I don't believe that extends to deputy positions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not "one of the several", but "one of the two". And if you'd notice, ipso facto was invoked by Robert McClenon on Shahzada (prince) Huzaifa Mohyuddin who wasn't a Mazoon or a Mukasir. Besides, Aliasgar Kalimuddin is a Shahzada (prince) himself, by virtue of being one of the 12 sons of the 51st Da'i al-Mutlaq, Taher Saifuddin. I guess, what I am trying to say here is, if WP:IPSOFACTO applies to Huzaifa Mohyuddin, then it absolutely applies to Aliasgar Kalimuddin. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Huzaifa Mohyuddin was not "head of a major sect," then perhaps the commenter in that AfD misread the article. The fundamental question is, in the absence of WP:SIGCOV, are we saying that deputies (or princes) of a sect of 1 million people are automatically notable notable? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Princes (Shahzada) and the Deputies do hold a position of importance within the Ismaili framework. Head of a sect or not, Aliasgar Kalimuddin (and Huzaifa Mohyuddin) are an ipso facto criterion for notability, because they have had a particular achievement, honor, status, or position. In Aliasgar Kalimuddin's case, he was given Key to the city of La Possession, and his status as a second-in-command to Mufaddal Saifuddin warrants notability. The followers of the Dawoodi Bohra being 1 million or 2 million or 5 million^[1] is besides the point, I feel. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Deletion - Enough sources have been establishes. His importance in Dawoodi Bohra Community is recognized Sherenk1 (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Ravensfire. None of the sources discuss the subject directly and in-depth. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. // Timothy :: talk 04:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What we have to guide us are the notability guidelines. The subject does not pass. The number of followers (YouTube, Twitter, adherent, etc.) are not benchmarks. Inclusion in reliable, independent sources is. Ifnord (talk) 17:33, 14 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 draftify. $Salvio$ 21:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahkulu Sons[edit]

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

This is an article full of orthographical inaccuracies sourced with a single source of an not very known author and it is not clear if the article is about an Emirate or sons. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC) ~~:Delete - appears to fail google test and GNG. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 16:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

The article has been moved to the draft space by now, so the author can work on it. As to me, this is fair.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAh no, the article was already published on the 26th and moved then to the draft space, check https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Şahkulu_Sons&action=history on the 27th. Then the author republished it afterwards...Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC) enough resources and information added @Paradise Chronicle:[reply]

Great, I left several invisible comments and made the article at least a little more understandable. This doesn't imply it is right what I copyedited, as I didn't check the sources. Still, a lot remains unclear, are the Shakhulu Sons now a Principality or a Dynasty, if they are a Dynasty, who is its founder...? And so on...I still propose to move the article to the draft space, where Frat can work on it and clarify some issues.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or drafify) and let the creator tidy it up. The source cited appears to be a university publication about a petty state, existing c.1548-1608. We are probably dealing with an article by a non-native English speaker and there may be a translation difficulty. The source says "Pinyaşi government" so that Pinyaşi principality might be the better name with Pinyasi principality created as a redirect (to avoid the need to type diacriticals. I know nothing of the subject, but assume good faith. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources show notability, although a lot of clean-up needed. Bondegezou (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changed vote, could be cleaned up. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 14:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Paradise Chronicle. Give the creator and others a chance to improve it to the point where it is ready for mainspace (if possible). // Timothy :: talk 16:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, as above, to allow incubation and bringing it up to a state where it won't be quickly nominated again for deletion. Ifnord (talk) 17:30, 14 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 15:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Design Associates[edit]

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

This company doesn't seem notable. The article cites a trivial mention in an encyclopedia and a basic listing in a blog. I couldn't find anything else about them. Except for a few extremely brief company profiles. It's not even clear from the article that they made anything either. So, it doesn't seem to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NCORP notability standards. Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 10:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For a while I thought this could have been redirected to Aero Design DG-1 as manufacturing that aircraft is their only claim to fame. Turns out I can't even confirm this company made the aircraft as is claimed in the article. All I could confirm is that the company exists (or existed). Just delete it, do not redirect. --Dps04 (talk) 05:00, 13 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 15:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Marvel (director)[edit]

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

No consensus AfD over 10 years ago, the article hasn't improved since and there is still very little to suggest the subject passes WP:NBIO/NCREATIVE. The few sources out there seem to be mirrors of our old wiki content... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing suggests that he is an actually signifiicant stage director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 7 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 15:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Maria Azzi[edit]

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

The only source is a primary source (her CV on the Lebanese government site) and I can't find substantial coverage of her, just mentions of her performing her ambassadorial duties. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not enough to pass GNG and ambassadors are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 7 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 Moved to Draft space. (non-admin closure) Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ariade Lee[edit]

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

Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. She was the only woman serving in an Army, but this does not meet WP:NSOLDIER. WP:BEFORE in Google, Baidu, and JSTOR did not reveal additional sources except [21] which does not contribute to meeting notability. // Timothy :: talk 02:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet GNG Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 10:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only woman serving in a major army is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No RS that that is even true. Mztourist (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If something is a truly notable accomplishment we would have sources on it. Wikipedia follows sources. 3rd party reliable sources determine what is notable by covering it, we do not determine what is notable by fiat. "only x doing y" is not a default sign of notability lacking sources that support the claim that only x doing y, or first x to do y, is a notable thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 7 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 Redirected(/merged as appropriate) to r/The_Donald. Extended reasoning, since there are a lot of people who will probably fuss about this close. For the purposes of this exercise, I am conflating the redirect and the merge !votes, since they amount to roughly the same thing, and assuming that those who !vote delete would prefer redirection over nothing (some of which have made this explicit). The numbers are roughly 11 for redirect/merge, 5 for delete, and 10 for keep, or 16 for delete/merge/redirect to 10 for keep, but AfD isn't a vote of course. A lot of the keep !votes are weak arguments; any arguments about "/r/The_Donald has an article" or "/r/The_Donald/ is dead so this should be the main article for the two" are not founded in Wikipedia policy; WP:INHERITWEB, WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and WP:OTHERSTUFF come to mind. Alexa traffic results are of course not a factor for notability; see WP:INHERENTWEB. I would be remiss if I didn't say that some of the delete, redirect, or merge are similarly not strong; simply stating that a topic isn't notable isn't a good argument unless you can say why it's not notable, but there is a certain amount of inference, i.e. that the !voter is arguing that the current sources as used in the article are insufficient to establish notability, that can be made there that the keep !votes don't benefit from. LeftScript's keep !vote, in attempting to provide sources for the article, takes the right approach to demonstrating notability, but tronvillain's analysis of those offered sources is persuasive, and it's hard to say that the Axios piece, for example, provides all that much more than trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, as WP:WEBCRIT puts it, so I would tend to agree with their assertion (and the nominator's implied assertion, for that matter) that those sources alone aren't enough to establish notability. So, it seems to me that redirection without deletion is the consensus here; there are some sources, enough that there is some mergeable content that doesn't need to be deleted, but not enough notability for a standalone article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheDonald.win[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Notability has not been adequately shown. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 02:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 02:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete internet forums for political candidates are a dime a dozen and this one doesn't seem to be any more notable then any of the other ones out there. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1 per WP:GNG the topic meets the guidelines to be suitable for a stand-alone article --Techied (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Techied, see my comment below. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the largest forum dedicated to Donald Trump, who is not just a political candidate but the sitting President of the United States. The site has received lengthy coverage both in its former form as a subreddit and as an independent site (Notably, the subreddit does have its own page, so why not this site?) At most, the page should be added to WP:ATTENTION because it is lacking somewhat in citations of notability, due to its age of only 1 day. --Techied (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd support merging to r/The_Donald since that seems to be what most of the coverage is about at this point and therefore this is technically WP:TOSOON on it's own IMO. It's impossible at this point to say if TheDonald.win will be notable enough on it's own as is though. I feel like a lot of the media around these types of things has mostly fizzled out to. It's hot notable just by inheritance though and there still needs to be enough in-depth coverage about it to warrant a separate article. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thedonald.win is the largest Pro-Trump forum on the internet as of now and there is no issue with it having its own wikipedia article. It's own former status as a subreddit, r/the_donald, has its own wikipedia article so there is no reason the site itself shouldn't, especially with the amount of traffic it gets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt9094 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merging it with r/the_donald is a bad decision. r/the_donald is entirely different than thedonald.win. r/the_donald was a subreddit on reddit, and thedonald.win is an online forum with its own domain, .win, and it has a community of different .win websites alongside it. The r/the_donald subbreddit's wikipedia article is also semi-protected by wikipedia, so only authorized users can make edits, and so thedonald.win's portion if it does merge may go unnoticed and not updated as the forum develops. It would also be subject to some political biases as well if merged with r/the_donald. Overall the idea of this forum having its own wikipedia article is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt9094 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's already mentioned in r/the_donald and this article doesn't add anything notable that isn't already mentioned there. So it's a completely needless fork. It's ridiculous to claim if it's added to r/the_donald it will go un-noticed or not be updated. Second, "keep because political biases" isn't a valid keep argument. Even if it was though, there still needs to enough in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources about it to pass the notability guidelines and it just doesn't have enough yet IMO. At the end of the day this a completely unnecessary fork article. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention is has in r/the_donald's wiki page is that users left the subreddit to go there, it doesn't explain any of the statistics of the site, history of the site, or how it works. And I'm just pointing out that political biases on both sides have plagued that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt9094 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's really all that needs to be said about it at this point anyway though. Stuff like the sites Alexa ranking or how many posts per day it has isn't really relevant. If you cut that stuff out of the article all that would be left is essentially what's already in r/the_donald. What little isn't mentioned there though could easily be added to it though. Although, there's almost nothing that should be. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty to be said about the site that isn't yet included in r/the_donald or TheDonald.win. The information in r/the_donald is meager at best and can be expanded upon. --Techied (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article was just made today, there is much more that can be expanded upon for this article, but so far it has just been 3 guys putting in a few smaller paragraphs to get it started. As more people come across it, more people will add to it. Also thedonald.win itself wants no association with the website reddit, which is the site that the now banned subreddit was on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt9094 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they don't want to be associated with Reddit now that they banned them. They were perfectly fine using it to promote their site before then though when they were the mods of r/the_donald. Either way though, Wikipedia doesn't do what website admins want. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never said that they have to follow what the forum admins want, all I'm saying is that thedonald.win has no relation to reddit itself, it's a completely separate forum, the only relation between the two is that the mods are the same because they founded the forum, and the users flocked from r/the_donald to TheDonald.win. They shouldn't be on the same article, there is no need for it to be put on there, this is a separate entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt9094 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BTW, it seems that the user Techied is a single article editor and member of thedonald.win. Who posted a message to it's members here asking them to get involved in the AfD. Most notably the message included Techied saying "You need to create an account, and then edit the page saying it's considered for deletion. Add your comment to the bottom using this format: *KEEP type your reason here." Which I'm pretty sure violates the guidelines around campaigning and sockpuppet voting. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might I add that the post influenced nobody to come over here, and there were disagreements in the comments over it because many believe wikipedia's top editors have a political bias. Also that should be an issue with the user and not the article itself. --Bolt9094 (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the post now realizing that it is in bad faith. I mistook sockpuppeting to mean only fake accounts. Nonetheless, as Bolt9094 mentioned it doesn't seem to have had an effect on this AfD. --Techied (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the quote above was in response to a comment where a user asked more specifically what to do, this was not given as general instruction in my main post. --Techied (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Just a copycat website of r/the_Donald, and notability is not demonstrated with multiple significant sources. Reywas92^Talk 17:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't something Donald Trump did, and it isn't a "copycat" of r/The_Donald, it has the same users and moderators as r/The_Donald as it was founded by mods and users there who went to thedonald.win after the_donalds quarantine and shutdown on Reddit. --Bolt9094 (talk)

The site passes WP:GNG as has been discussed multiple times --64.201.97.98 (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to r/The_Donald; it's not independently notable from its prior incarnation. XOR'easter (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to r/The_Donald, no reason for this to be split from that page as they are pretty much the exact same thing. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with r/The_Donald, i believe it is notable enough to deserve a mention but not notable enough to deserve its own page Pancho507 (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, and User:Techied should be censured for Votestacking. --Cahk (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Its pretty much just a spin-off/sequel to the Reddit sub, I don't see how one is notable without the other, we surely don't need two articles on this fanclub.★Trekker (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the site is notable, as per Wikipedia:Notability's guidelines; TheDonald.win has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent,^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11] and is bound to receive more over time. Especially note these articles wherein thedonald.win was mentioned without any reference to its predecessor r/The_Donald, or r/the_donald's banning/quarantine, giving thedonald.win notability apart from r/the_donald.^[12]^[13]^[14] It would be improper to lump thedonald.win with the r/the_donald article, since r/the_donald is a defunct subreddit, and thedonald.win is an independent forum. Therefore, I also oppose merging the articles, or redirecting thedonald.win to r/the_donald. LeftScript (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC) — LeftScript (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

An account created over 2 years ago with zero edit except to cast a vote here - SPA?--Cahk (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, though I understand your suspicion. I hope that my account's lack of editing doesn't detract from the content of my argument, because that would mean my contribution was meaningless, and I shouldn't have bothered. I ask that AGF would be practiced. LeftScript (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is the correct answer here. I am pretty sure LeftScript didn't create an account two years ago specifically for this conversation. If they did, I have some questions about stocks and sports betting. Wookian (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the majority of the sources mention the new forum as the new home of the old forum, then that's a good argument to have only a single article. XOR'easter (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, if not for the fact that thedonald.win is a successor and entirely different website. I don't think it's right for a successor to be thrown into the same article as a predecessor. If anything, it makes the most sense to state that thedonald.win is r/the_donald's successor in r/the_donald's infobox, and for thedonald.win to remain a separate article. I don't understand merging a dead predecessor with an alive successor. Were r/the_donald still alive, I would have no doubt that they should be merged. Successors and predecessors should be separate. LeftScript (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subreddit is dead now. No reason to link a live site to a dead subreddit. Dead subreddit /R/the_donald is dead. AngerMacFadden (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC) — AngerMacFadden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It is a notable and politically important site as evidenced by all the links shared by LeftScript above. If one wanted to redirect, it would actually make more sense to redirect /r/the_donald to the new .win article, than to redirect the live site thedonald.win to the defunct subreddit article. Wookian (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Chrissy Teigen deserves a Wikipedia page then thedonald.win Is definitely deserving of one. Chrissy Teigen is only famous for being John legend’s wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.186.170 (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and highly relevant to the ongoing "publisher vs. platform" debate regarding internet censorship. jej1997 (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adamant1's claim that this website is no more notable than the other ones out there makes no sense. What standards are being used to define notability? What sources helped you come to this conclusion? TheDonald.win receives over double the traffic r/The_Donald received, yet r/The_Donald has an article, so I don't see why this one shouldn't have one as well. Also, TheDonald.win receives over one million comments per month, which most people would consider notable. Adil3214 (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not judge notability by comments, hits or other traffic measures, but by coverage in independent, reliable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- LeftScript already explained coverage of TheDonald.win in 13 independent sources. I get that other websites definitely receive more coverage, but how much coverage do you think would be sufficient to make TheDonald.win notable? Adil3214 (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources provided that mention the new forum without the old are a Forbes contributor item, disallowed by WP:RSP; two brief mentions by Axios (one just says "New platforms such as Parler and TheDonald.win are giving the [QAnon] conspiracy theory places to spread unchecked"), which is not in-depth coverage; and a blurb from the American Press Institute that just recycles an Axios mention. This is not enough to qualify as in-depth reporting that establishes the new forum deserves separate treatment. XOR'easter (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point this out, a large majority of users on TheDonald.win disagree with a large majority of QAnon theories/theorists. Bolt9094 (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that Forbes contributor items aren't considered reliable sources. I'm not too familiar with all of Wikipedia's guidelines, so I appreciate it. I went ahead and removed it. There appears to be a new article by the Financial Times, but unfortunately I don't have a subscription to them, so I can' t judge it's content.^[15] LeftScript (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It discusses the new site as the reiteration of the old, explicitly making the point that it replicate[s] the functionality of Reddit, that its interface is Reddit-like, etc. It looks to be solid coverage, but it's not evidence that the new site needs a new article. XOR'easter (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I learned a lot from this article about thedonald.win. It's a fun site, glad I joined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.112.60 (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC) — 64.201.112.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The problem here is that this article was created about a month too soon. Because the topic website is so new there are not enough sources that talk about it in enough depth to establish that it is notable. HOWEVER, I fully expect the amount of coverage to change in the very near future (as pro-Trump journalists hype it, and anti/trump journalists deride it). So... I would say... KEEP FOR NOW... and REEVALUATE IN A MONTH. If the expected coverage does not appear, we can always delete the article then. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which would work equally well or better as an argument for a redirect—if notability can be established later, it's trivially easy to turn a redirect back into an article. --tronvillain (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came to read about this article after I read this article from Financial Times, Far-right finds new online home in TheDonald.win. As for this AfD, I would say keep because the subject absolutely meets WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. Santosh L (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to /r/thedonald as above. The legion of "brand new users" !voting keep, may safely be ignored. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by LeftScript. Notability is too palpable here that a standalone article would be well-deserved. Lorstaking 14:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to /r/thedonald, though there might be enough to add a few sentences about it there. There's clearly not enough to establish general notability, however much proponents would like there to be—I've looked through the sources linked by LeftScript and while they make a long list, they in no sense constitute extensive coverage. Let's look: the Wired article is two offhand mentions in a piece about /r/thedonald, the Daily Beast article is a single offhand mention in a piece about Kanye's Presidential bid, the WFAE90.7 interview has another offhand mention of its existence, the Fox News is another offhand mention of about former users of the subreddit fleeing there, the OneZero article may be something {unlike many Medium items) given that it's published by Medium itself with a claim that articles are "subject to editing and fact-checking for accuracy by OneZero’s editorial staff", the short Axios piece is already in the article, the Politico article is a tiny offhand mention in a piece about Trump and Twitter, the NBC News article is an offhand mention in a piece about Trump tweets and extremists, the Media Matters for America is an offhand mention in a piece about a BLM conspiracy theory, the Daily Beast article is an offhand mention in a piece about another conspiracy theory, the next Axios piece is barely an offhand mention in a piece about QAnon, the next Axios piece is a mention in a piece about similar "social media networks", the American Press Institute is just a reprint of the previous Axios piece, and the Financial Times piece is already in the article. The internet was scraped and maybe turned up one additional source from Medium, so I think that collection by LefScript actually makes a pretty good argument for lack of notability. --tronvillain (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to r/The_Donald or Delete. I'm sure the closing admin will take into account the rampant WP:SPA activity on this discussion. KidAd (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is bad, as shown above by several others, and does not support the assertion of notability. Given the nature of this website and its users, there will be a lot of sock and "new user" accounts to weed through by the time this discussion winds down. ValarianB (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ValarianB, it's telling that fanbois are currently arguing that we should allow unsourced content because reliable sources don't cover it. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to /r/TheDonald or WP:DRAFTIFY. Echoing the thoughts of @Tronvillain: I see only two reliable sources where this website is the main focus of the article (FT and Axios). All other mentions in sources are, at best, only in passing, so the article thus fails to satisfy the most basic requirements of WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. The subject may be covered extensively by reliable sources in the future, but this article has appeared WP:TOOSOON. Domeditrix (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into r/The_Donald - these communities are so closely related, TheDonald.win does not warrant its own article. Ed talk! 13:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with r/The Donald, communities are closely related enough that you might as well call them the same community. Due to the fact that this is the same community going by a different name, I don't care which title it ends up being at. Username⁶⁸⁹² 14:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the page is going to be hijacked by left-wing wikipedia editors who will introduce biases onto the page such as calling it "far-right", then the page shouldn't exist at all. I change my vote to delete Bolt9094 (talk 14:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it isn't notable enough for mainstream RS to cover and must depend on self-sourced info and original research, it doesn't deserve an article here. -- Valjean (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agnichakra[edit]

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

This film doesn't seem to be notable since the article hasn't cited any sources since at least 2015 and I couldn't find anything close to the multiple in-depth reviews that it would need to pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM in a WP:BEFORE. All there seems to be out there about it is trivial plot summaries. Adamant1 (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:17, 14 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 15:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lane Patterson[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NTRACK. Seems to have been an accomplished college athlete, but not meeting WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 02:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a high school state track champion is not enough to show notability. I found nothing to show he meets WP:NTRACK or WP:NCOLLATH. The coverage I found was routine sports reporting, mainly listings of results. He died before the internet so it's possible there is some newspaper coverage of him that I didn't see, but the fact that there's nothing to show he's close to meeting any SNG makes me suspect that any newspaper coverage is likely to be local and/or routine. Papaursa (talk) 23:04, 10 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. Consensus is for deletion. Independent, reliable sources that have discussed this topic appear not to have been produced. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ophadano[edit]

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

A micro-nation that is not the subject of substantial coverage; neither dailyscanner.com nor paxjones.com are remotely a reliable source and the only other coverage appears to be Ophadano's own site. Created by an SPA. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 02:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a non-notable, dishonest pseudo-country. I say "dishonest" because its website proclaims, "Pursuant to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States; if you are a signatory of the Convention, or an agency or instrumentality of a signatory, you agree that any interaction with this Domain shall result in an act which implies the ‘intention of recognizing the new state’ and shall result in your State’s de facto tacit recognition of Ophadano pursuant to Article 7." In other words, government officials of many countries in North and South America are not even allowed to look at the Ophadano website without Ophadano claiming that their government has recognized it as an independent state. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nom. I'm half convinced this is just a media stunt. // Timothy :: talk 04:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article creator's sole activity on WP has been spamming articles like Terra nullius and Bir Tawil with links promoting this "non-territorial entity"--and I couldn't even tell if it was supposed to be that kind of entity, or Yet Another Microstate or what, even from the entity's own web site. Author is clearly not here to build the encyclopedia. --Finngall ^talk 06:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an agressively written article clearly POV-pushing a concept as having some legal standing which it does not in fact count. For the record I did not look at the website. Since I am a countract employee of a program which receives federal funding, I probably could not in any way be construed to be an agent of the US government, but I wanted to avoid any attempt to portray my actions as that of the government.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPHow can the page be made better? Ophadano is not a 'micronation' or a 'pseudo-country' and its disclaimers on its website are not 'dishonest'. Ophadano is a jurisdiction defined in the Kitwe Charter recognized by Zambia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuel Scuaze (talk • contribs) 08:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ For the record, ophadano is a 'legal' entity. I added distinct ophadano literature into the Article including two constitutions and a declaration of independence. These works were published by 'His Ophadano's Government' in the United States and are currently being sold globally. How can we make the article better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuel Scuaze (talk • contribs) 08:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to make this article better would be to find independent, reliable sources that have discussed this topic and use them in order to cite the facts in the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable creation of SPA. --Lockley (talk) 03:06, 9 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. Consensus here is for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

City State of Kitwe[edit]

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

A micro-nation that is not the subject of substantial coverage; paxjones.com is not remotely a reliable source and the only other coverage appears to be Ophadano's own site. Created by an SPA. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with regret. The world could use more microstates, but the so long as the only source is paxjones.com, that's not sufficient. TheBlueCanoe 02:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources I can find are about Kitwe itself. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nom. I'm half convinced this is just a media stunt. // Timothy :: talk 04:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no evidence that this is a notable entity, or in any way a real thing at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is a new society in Zambia. Its founding document the Kitwe Charter was just certified on July 16,2020 by the Commissioner of Oaths for the Local Court in Kitwe Zambia. City State of Kitwe is a legal entity recognized by the Republic of Zambia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuel Scuaze (talk • contribs) 09:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Being chartered by a local court in this way does not make one a "legal entity recognized by the Republic of Zambia", and being recognized legal entitites in the way this actully is is in no way a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you know Zambian law? Also, the charter was not written by the Courts it was certified by the courts commissioner of oaths before being deposited to the Zambian parliament and Head of State. Zambian parliament has right to observer status during Kitwe Congres deliberations and does utilize that right which is clearly outlined by the articles of the Kitwe Charter. Furthermore, your misspelling makes your point hard to understand, but as far as and being 'recognized legal entities' in this way and not having 'notability' as you so eloquently put it quite honestly reveals you are ignorant of Zambian law or even basic international law. If you dont know what your talking about then why intercede? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuel Scuaze (talk • contribs) 16:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Emmanuel Scuaze a knowledge of Zambian law is not useful or important here even in the slightest bit. It matters as much as the price of tea in Los Angeles ($33/lb for acceptable Darjeeling). What is useful and important here is understanding Wikipedia guidelines and policies regarding but not limited to: WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WWIN, WP:SPAM. Just as if I wish to live in Zambia, I need to understand the way Zambia works, if you wish to contribute here, you need to understand the policies and guidelines we work within in order to contribute productively and enjoyably. // Timothy :: talk 17:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What can make this article better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuel Scuaze (talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Some independent, reliable sources to verify the information might help. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and probable hoax. --Lockley (talk) 03:04, 9 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. Looks like the page had been vandalised and was returned to what it should be. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alhaj Ghulam Qadir Ganipuri[edit]

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

Doesn't comply with WP:N. Not to mention, uses excessive and unnecessary text formatting, unclear language and unsubstantiated claims. Stefania0 (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the problems stemmed from Special:Diff/971120885, which I've just reverted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 01:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 01:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - issues with this page seem to have been resolved with a simple revert.TheBlueCanoe 02:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reverted condition noted above. // Timothy :: talk 04:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per norms and above comment. Additional Comment: The AfD has been requested by 5 hours old user, who have only 7 edits till now. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 05:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:11, 8 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 15:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Appleby[edit]

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

Delete: I believe this page should be deleted due to lack of notability WP:N and reliable sources WP:RS. In terms of notability, Jamie Appleby lacks significant coverage. In researching him, I found no news coverage even mentioning him in reliable sources. Additionally, this page lacks reliable sources in general. Of the four sources listed, one is a press release and two link to pages that no longer exist. This page really only has one reliable source, allmusic. Despite his composing credits on notable works, I still think the lack of notability qualifies this page to be deleted as there are no news articles with significant coverage of him.Cluehitch (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 01:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 01:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For reasons cited above. This is an accomplished person in his field, but not a public figure.TheBlueCanoe 02:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately it will have to be a delete, maybe it can be recreated in the future if he has more notability. --James Richards (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia is not how impressive the things he's done happen to sound, it's how much media coverage he has or hasn't received about the things he's done. If you have to rely entirely on the self-published websites of people or organizations directly affiliated with the claims (e.g. sourcing a SOCAN award to SOCAN, or his job with a record label to that record label's own website about itself), because media coverage independently establishing the significance of his achievements is non-existent, then he doesn't clear the bar for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 13 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.