< 8 August	10 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 delete. Sandstein 17:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Beridze[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted via AfD in May 2020. Recently recreated by an SPA, who also removed the speedy tag. The overall tone of the article is so promotional and riddled with inflated claims that I can't really cut through the promotion to assess the notability accurately. Seems to be an NARTIST fail. I asked the deleting admin to look at the old version and they said they doubt the reliability of this version. Bringing it here for another discussion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Per the prior consensus that this person wasn't notable enough for an article. Which if going by the article and a search on Google hasn't changed in the three months since this was deleted. Also, salt it isn't just recreated again by the SPA editor. Since going by their behavior it seems like that's what they will try to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per first nomination The speedy deletion tag by Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) has been removed, it needs to be added back. Devokewater@ 10:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Devokewater, It was contested by another editor, so it can’t be added back Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fails WP:NARTIST.Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beridze is the first artist to visualize and draw the Thought Process. No he isn't. He also isn't "the king of abstraction", "in the Top 10 most promising artists in France" or "the National Artist of Georgia". Vexations (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comments by Megan Barris above were removed to eliminate non notable information. Please don't delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M65343696 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the article creator M65343696 means is the items mentioned by vexations (Beridze is the first artist to visualize and draw the Thought Process, "the king of abstraction", "in the Top 10 most promising artists in France", "the National Artist of Georgia") were removed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly this information was removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M65343696 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN applies. To restore material you must demonstrate verifiability by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports your contribution, Vexations (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot notable, does support WP:NARTIST. Alex-h (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete The article has been updated by additional citations. The media coverage comes from internationally recognized media: ELLE, InStyle, Le Figaro, TV France 3, HARPER'S BAZAAR, TATLER. Additionally to this there is coverage coming from the artists home country such as Kommersant (leading Russian newspaper) among other. The artist has published a book. The artist was selected among 10 artists to participate in the campaign of twenty huge art objects painted by artists from all over the world to support Yekaterinburg's bid to host World Expo 2025. The artist was appointed the Art Director of "2019 Monaco Grand Prix Formula 1", 90th Anniversary. Between 2013 and 2017 the artist was auctioned by Phillips Auction House in London and NYC 4 times. The art of Beridze can be found in the private collections of the celebrities: Ivana Trump, Joan Collins and personalities such as Alisher Usmanov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M65343696 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NARTIST and the GNG. The only "citation" added by the SPA above, following the opinions of the other delete proponents, is a Vimeo link, for pity's sake. Ravenswing 16:52, 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 delete. Tone 19:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manugistics[edit]

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

Abysmal sourcing - including a reference to the company's own LinkedIn page - falls far short of meeting WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 23:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC) BD2412 T 23:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 23:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NCOMPANY --Devokewater@ 18:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Maybe the 'weak' part is just me feeling sad about anything historical, although a quick WP:BEFORE suggests some sources, but I don't think they'll be sufficient. Also, if the article isn't getting improved during a deletion discussion, it seems unlikely that it will be improved later on. With a heavy heart, I suggest that another piece of probably not notable history be let go.122.162.131.66 (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NCORP and the GNG. Nothing really "historical" here to lose. Ravenswing 16:48, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Akintayo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Like the previous Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Akintayo), which closed less than a year ago, non-notable and promotional. Also quite clearly WP:COI / WP:PAID concerns. Loksmythe (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed paid, promotional article, built on a single source which is a dead link Naleksuh (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted because it does not violate Wikipedia’s copyright policy. It contains no redundant or overused template. There are reliable and authorized sources for the content on the page. The article also meets the notability guideline as it is verifiable. The article adheres strictly to the speculations on adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, in all applicable laws in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saconsultglobal (talk • contribs) 11:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That is one of the weakest arguments for Keep I have read, that an article should be Kept because it is not copyvio. But Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional, and does not satisfy general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non notable “serial entrepreneur” as he lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 06:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not enough reliable sources to prove notability. Alex-h (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and blatant promotion. --Kbabej (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Brahma Dharma Committee[edit]

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

I found no notability for this organization. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article says this is a Samithi (an active religious association) with six branches (associations) scattered over the 17th district of Assam and West Bengal. It seems to cater to the religious needs of the Bodo people, and as such, is likely to be a seva samithi - that is - rendering selfless service to the poor and the needy. The listing of the Presidents is likely to be the only notablity available on Internet resources. The Wayback Machine gives (Got an HTTP 301 response at crawl time). The article probably deserves expansion to include their purpose, service rendered and community roles. Whiteguru (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article was tagged with maintenance tags about three years ago but till now, none of the concerns have been addressed. The lack of an active website makes it difficult to assess the notabilty of the organisation. --RaviC (talk) 16:51, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Robot[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Albums were self-released. Only source in the article is discogs.com. Google searches find robotic dinosaur toys, and nothing for Mark Bowlus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete going by a Google search that just turns up results for toy robots and the fact that there isn't even an AllMusic page about this guy, I'd say he's not notability and that the article fails WP:NMUSIC. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non-notable musician. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - man cannot survive on Discogs alone. His profile there shows his releases as being on SoundCloud and Bandcamp; not on any notable label, no evidence of any significance, not even a valid claim of significance. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 19:26, 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. Tone 19:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Clark (playwright)[edit]

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

Non-notable children's drama teacher. Has not received significant coverage in independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he was the "official bicentenial playwright" for Worthington, Ohio. Worthington is a suburb of Columbus with less than 15,000 people. He is also a middle school drama teacher. None of this comes close to making notability, and his plays do not have the impact to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Unclear that he is in any way notable or that he has written any notable works. Difficult to search about, since Brian Clark (writer) (author of Whose Life Is It Anyway?) is an actual notable, award-winning playwright. Softlavender (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: difficult to find any references to this fellow and his work. As mentioned above, searching brings Brian Clark (writer) (author of Whose Life Is It Anyway?), which is not his work. Lacks notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: And I was the Junior Grand Marshal for my town (which was larger than Worthington) for the national bicentennial in 1976. So what? (Except I got to march with Major Mudd and a girl I had a crush on, so that was cool.) Subject fails the GNG and WP:BIO. Ravenswing 16:24, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Georgian throne[edit]

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

This throne has been defunct since the early 1800s. WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because monarchy doesn't exist anymore. See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are also WP:BLP concerns about the people who are listed here, including at least one minor.

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 20 lines of successions to defunct thrones that have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20). TompaDompa (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article consists of WP:OR, and that's it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons stated above. This is very WP:OR and stuff invented and assumed rather than being compiled from fact. doktorb _words^deeds 07:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 09:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How can one be in line of succession to a throne, that no longer exists? GoodDay (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure WP:OR. An emperor /// Ave 22:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Claimants to the Georgian throne or such like. The article sets out who the rival claimants are. It would be better if their relationship to the last ruling monarch were better explained. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 16 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 per strong Keep consensus (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 02:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Government Gazette[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed no additional WP:RS that addresses the subject directly and in-depth that would establish notability. The article does not provide encyclopedic content and meets WP:NOTEVERYTHING. // Timothy :: talk 19:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have articles on similar publications for sub-national units in other Commonwealth countries. See, e.g., Kerala Gazette, Ontario Gazette. Making a WP:OSE argument because these are, in my view, strictly analogous. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per AleatoryPonderings. The state gazettes are longstanding and notable. Deus et lex (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this fails the secondary in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources needed to pass WP:GNG and just having other extremely badly sourced articles on similar things isn't a good reason to keep it. I'd suggest doing AfDs on them also. Since they clearly fail WP:GNG. While I'm not a huge fan ofWP:OSEs arguments in general, I'm even less a fan of them when the "other stuff" doesn't even meet the notability guidelines. "lets keep this non-notable thing, because of these other non-notable things" is extremely weak reasoning IMO. What it should ultimately come down to is if the subject of the AfD passes WP:GNG or not, and as things currently are this doesn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Adamant1: Fair enough, but I'm not sure that WP:GNG is the right guideline to apply to this publication or its analogues in other countries. Rather, I'd suggest that WP:NPERIODICAL—yes, just an essay, but I find it convincing—is the right guideline. Government gazettes—a non-Commonwealth example is the Federal Register—are the official reports of legislation and regulations, so they are continually use[d] as a citation in academic or scholarly works and in other government documents. Any law journal, for instance, will cite official reports of legislation or regulations. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gazettes are important part of the workings of Australian governments. All other states have articles. Some diversity of sourcing would be useful.--Grahame (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Nomination withdrawn per strong Keep consensus. Thank you. // Timothy :: talk 02:55, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Laverne Hubert[edit]

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

Lacks notability, fails WP:NBASE Dmoore5556 (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dmoore5556 (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Dmoore5556 (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NCOLLATH #1 as having won a major national-level award. Hubert was an NCAA Division I college baseball First Team All-American in 1951 (1). Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, and confirmed at this NCAA list of First Team All-Americans. His article not linked from 1951 College Baseball All-America Team, which I'll fix. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. In light of the above, I withdraw this nomination. Dmoore5556 (talk) 20:58, 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 redirect to List of students of Mahmud Hasan Deobandi. T. Canens (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uzair Gul[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE:WP:BASIC. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed nothing that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 19:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to ~~Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind or Mahmud Hasan Deobandi~~ List of students of Mahmud Hasan Deobandi, per El cid, el campeador. (Didn't realize that existed …) He's mainly cited as an also-ran to Mahmud Hasan Deobandi. Gets some coverage on his own—the most substantive I could find is here—but not enough, in my view, to justify an entire article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject isn't notable enough for an article. Normally I'd opt for a redirect or merge, but it seems like both the targets are only tangentially related the person. So I don't think either would work well as places to redirect or merge this to. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of students of Mahmud Hasan Deobandi. As long as we have a single source, he can be included there without a WL. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect It is clear that Mahmud Hasan Deobandi is well known enough, and that this fellow Uzair Gul was part of the Quit India movement and from sources that I could find, was a prisoner during the quit movement who was frequently asked about Jihad. Other than this, there are no other primary resources to give this fellow notability. He can be included in the List of students of Mahmud Hasan Deobandi --Whiteguru (talk) 06:10, 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 delete. Sandstein 08:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Centre de services scolaire de la Rivière-du-Nord[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed nothing beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 19:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create

Delete: Per Nom. Also, the title is not in English. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:19, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per talk page discussion (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 15:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pwalugu Tomato Factory[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed basic WP:ROUTINE coverage, nothing that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 19:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there's WP:SIGCOV, including two pieces in the Daily Graphic. I've just added a few of the sources I found to the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage to justify having an article on this factory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AleatoryPonderings' addition of sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the above sources provided show notability. However when I was leaving a note on the creators userpage, I couldn't help but notice they were struggling with copyright issues. I ran this article through Earwig and found this, granted it is minor, but may warrant some clean up, so I wanted to bring it up here before I withdraw the nomination. // Timothy :: talk 14:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This should be resolved. Current check highlights only proper nouns. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn per above discussion. The memory of the tomato factory will live on :) // Timothy :: talk 15:07, 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) 20:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donvale Christian College[edit]

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

Article about a secondary school does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". Cited references are not independent of the subject. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and not independent sources covering the topic directly and in detail. // Timothy :: talk 19:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched Google and JSTOR and could not find sources that satisfied WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. As nom stated, this school does not have significant, independent coverage. Z1720 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already given about the lack of notability. Since I'm not seeing anything about it that would pass WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG either. Just trivial coverage of things that could apply to any college. Also, the article is extremely promotional in tone and would probably take a fundamental re-write not to be. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article about a non-notable subject. Spawnrec (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Timothy, article lacks independent coverage, and is somewhat laudatory and promotional. Whiteguru (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not enough independant sources to meet notabiity. fails WP:ORGCRIT, Alex-h (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:37, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per discussion. (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 07:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoda McGaw Theatre[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". // Timothy :: talk 19:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found the following two articles, which discuss the theatre—as opposed to performances in it—relatively in-depth. No idea where else they might be indexed, but I provided doc IDs for those with access to ProQuest. Most of the other coverage seems routine, and I'm not quite sure how to treat a trade journal for the purposes of WP:NBUILD. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Caswell, Richard (15 May 1975). "Woking's new leisure complex". 4909: 17. ProQuest document ID 1040281556. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
- Hepple, Peter (26 December 1991). "The wonder of Woking". 5776: 19. ProQuest document ID 962509926. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an article about al theatre, so the correct criteria are GNG and the not-very-helpful WP:NBUILD, not WP:ORGCRIT. It is clearly a professional venue, equivalent to an off-Broadway theatre in New York City. The article is not currently well-referenced, and it quotes too extensively from the theatre's website, but this is a significant venue and is certainly notable. It seems clear to me that this article simply needs a little attention from someone capable of going through the Google News and Google books sources and adding in-line cites to the statements made. Maybe someone from the Theatre project would be willing to invest the time? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an important regional theatre. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per AleatoryPonderings and other sources found. Please note; that a week rationale for keep may grant a reprisal for now, but a relisting, because the Nom was valid, could result in a different outcome. It is policy that information be verified and that primary sources do not advance notability. When notability is contested it become the burden of those wishing inclusion to provide proof according to our policies and guidelines. "Keep" gestures (wannabe !votes) will not usually suffice in many debates. If a venue is important it will likely have achieved notice and thereby sources. "All of the above" can be seen as "keep because everyone else likes it", and sourcing through the "external links section (certainly "not currently well-referenced" -- or at all) is rarely indicative of notability. I found some sources to validate some of the unsourced content and will see if there are more later. The Ambassador Theatre Group, which includes the New Victoria Theatre , the Rhoda McGaw Theatre and the six-screen cinema in Woking. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nomination withdrawn. Thank you all for your research. // Timothy :: talk 07:40, 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 delete. Tone 19:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WatchPayer[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. The article does not meet WP:SIGCOV // Timothy :: talk 19:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on an online business, featuring uncited promotional prose and detail (text, the photo of a member of staff at work) which seems likely to indicate undisclosed primary sourcing. Leaving that aside, the WatchTarget review and customer reviews are indicative of a company going about its business but searches are not finding evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 11:05, 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. czar 20:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ling Tai[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Claimed to have multiple roles in significant shows like Doctor Who, but has only played one-off roles relying on an IMDb cite. WP:BEFORE check pulled up only the IMDb bio and passing mentions in news galleries. References in this article included a stock photo page which claimed she was "abandoned at childbirth" (removed that potential WP:BLP violation). –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 19:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 19:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 19:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror. All articles on living people need a reliable source, IMDb is not reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no reliable coverage. I agree with John Pack Lambert that WP should not be an IMDB mirror. --Kbabej (talk) 15:59, 16 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. No prejudice against potential redirection. czar 20:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gas Chamber Orchestra[edit]

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

NN band GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American experimental band. They have a funny name in my opinion. But I'm afraid they are not notable for WP. The article is sourced to Myspace (not a RS) and an article about them which looks great, but this article is published in a San Jose magazine called Metro (Gas Chamber Orchestra is from San Jose) so it is not independent / just because a local paper covered them does not mean they are notable. I did a Google search, first without quotation marks and there were very few results about the band (or orchestra), most of the results were about gas chambers. Then I did a google search with quotation marks, now there are sites that are about the band - but unfortunately facebook, Amazon, RateYourMusic, Youtube videos, Bandcamp and all this crap. There is also a lyrics site, lots and lots of namechecks, trivial mentions, WP mirrors and stuff where the words are separated. None of these satisfy WP:RS. Neither of these are reliable. How this article managed to stay here since 2006 is beyond me - but I think I already said this several times. (Results on Google without quotation marks) (Results on Google with quotation marks) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A band project by 4 music students, only one of whose subsequent activity is marked by an article here. I don't see the local preview coverage of their 1998 concert or anything found in searches as sufficient to demonstrate that notability was attained. The one sentence coverage on the Mark Grey page is sufficient. (A redirect to there might be an option?) AllyD (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AllyD: Yeah, the title can stay as a redirect. It is not notable for its own article though. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing at all wrong about the San Jose newspaper source,as local sources are permitted for music articles and are often more reliable than national sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:16, 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) 00:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noelle Famera[edit]

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

Unsuccessful candidate fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Seems like some of her work is notable, but it is not sourced. Given the fact she was unsuccessful in her election, she does not satisfy notability standards.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NPOL. Unsuccessful candidate. LefcentrerightDiscuss 19:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The article's creator, one of its primary editors, sought to promote the candidate even after user talk page warnings about conflict of interest issues. —ADavidB 19:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for free placement of campaign literature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Losing candidate that did not receive wide (i.e. national) coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per ADavidB's rationale above. - AppleBsTime (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for being candidates in political party primaries — but this makes no credible claim that she has preexisting notability for other reasons independent of her candidacy, and is based entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:40, 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. Tone 19:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palisades Emergency Residence Corporation[edit]

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

Ubiquitous local homeless service. The page was created by the organization itself as evident in edit history. Every major city has them. They're not something that needs to be on Wiki. Fails WP:NORG Interest is limited to the locality. Graywalls (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable organization, without the in-depth reliable and verifiable sources required to establish notability and no more sourcing sound in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the GNG and WP:ORG. Ravenswing 16:22, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Bsherr (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Skies[edit]

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

Non-notable band! GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American band (actually, duo). The article does not contain any sources at all, just an MP3 download site (and there is a warning that the link is forbidden). Great, huh? It gets better. Google search did not turn up much better (same old, same old: databases, social media pages, retail sites, stuff where the words are separated since they have a really common name, concert sites, yadda yadda yadda). Btw they are not even from Montana, just like Hannah Montana. :) (Sorry, I had to crack this joke.) Unlike Hannah Montana, they are not notable for WP though. Back to topic: The article has been sitting here since 2007 (!) with a primary sources tag on it since that year. Actually there are no sources in the article (an Mp3 download site that is not even available?! Come on!) But anyways, this is just another case of me scratching my head and wondering how an article like this can stay here for such a long time. (Results on Google) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found coverage in the South Bend Tribune, Al.com, and a newspaper out of Knoxville. They all include concert announcements, but there's some decent prose about the band in them. [www.southbendtribune.com/entertainment/inthebend/eventnews/montana-skies-create-new-dawn-for-music/article_e9a5fbaa-fced-11e2-af8f-001a4bcf6878.amp.html] [www.al.com/entertainment-times/2011/11/montana_skies_to_bring_cello_g.html], [1]. I'll give it another look later. I'm not quite ready to say keep/delete. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, here's a working link for the Al.com piece, it's a bit on the brief side [2]. Here's the link for the South Bend Tribune piece [3], it looks decent, too. I'm gonna say Weak keep on this one. This isn't a whole lot, but it looks like enough to meet WP:GNG, if only just barely. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Knoxville Sentinel piece looks great. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The "Al.com" link is okay, it talks about Montana Skies, even though it is a concert promotion. The "South Bend Tribune" is not available to me because I don't live in the US (I freaking hate this btw). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the above mentioned sources there is also an AllMusic staff written bio here to go with the press coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think the Al piece meets SIGCOV, but the South Bend and Knoxville cites do. Not much clearance, but just enough. Ravenswing 16:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep they seem to have enough coverage to meet the notability guidelines, but just barely. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Leaning towards keep now. I changed my mind about the Al one, it is not okay because it is a concert promotion. Even though it talks about Montana Skies it has a very promotional tone. We can exclude that. I am still not convinced that they are 100% notable but the sources are good so I think the article can be kept. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Weak Keep I think this squeaks past the notability threshold and even though we're not supposed to WP:CRYSTAL and can see this getting more coverage in the future. // Timothy :: talk 21:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 21:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject fails to meet the criteria regarding significant coverage, person notability criteria and general notability criteria. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 12:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Howell[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. I'm not convinced that having a street named after you in a suburb of 4,000 people makes you notable, either. Lettler^hello 18:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 18:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 18:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 18:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not convinced any Afd should be constrained to a specific guideline, when the interaction in an Australian community between historic legacy and the context military service can be such a fraught issue. As to the 'size' of a community as a reflection as to the context of an individual in the community in the 'colonies' (as any British reader might understand), is a total furphy - the legacy and reputation of individuals was and is a much more complex cultural phenomenon in the community, and I for one would never put a google count or other count as a means of evaluating a persons reputation, or lack of../. JarrahTree 01:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think having a street named after you is actually a pretty good indicator of notability, regardless of the population of the area (in fact, maybe even more so if it's a smaller place, because there would generally be fewer streets to name!). As for his military notability, I agree that it's probably not enough on it's own, but in conjunction with working for both the Tramways and local government (about which there's more to be added to the article), I'd say Howell is definitely notable in a Western Australian context. The docs say that deletion is "for articles which cannot be improved", and I don't think that's the case here. —Sam Wilson 02:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - on closer look this AFd (in my understanding of suffering them for over 10 years), is complete furphy - the involvement in local government in the Fremantle community in a public position is in itself a sufficient. Try being an employee or elected member of the North Fremantle council at the time he was and not be noted... impossible... JarrahTree 02:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, totally non-notable life. Having a street named after him doesn't establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails SOLDIER and GNG. Every WWI digger from my suburb who was killed in the war has a street named after him. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JarrahTree. Deus et lex (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of Australian MM deletions nominations recently with the same reason Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Percival Schofield, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Leahy (Australian Army soldier), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John William Cotter, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Harold Stewart which gives the appearance of this being part of series of WP:POINTY nominations. Beside war service in WWI and WWII, theres the public officer for the town of North Fremantle, and the leading of a mass vaccination program to address regular epidemic. Perhaps there is better way to discuss this. Gnan garra 06:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is far from unusual to be working from a list of NN people, and in any event, every single one of those AfDs closed with unanimous Delete votes. Would you like to proffer a valid keep rationale? Ravenswing 16:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MM recipients cannot be assumed to have received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, and no such coverage is evident here with the subject's military service being cited almost entirely to primary sources. Having a street named after you is no indicator of notability either - property developers used to name streets after anything they felt like in some parts of Australia, including their family and friends. All up, there's nothing in the article at present which indicates WP:BIO is met, and no additional sources have been identified in the discussion above. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV. The Military Medal article states over 100,000 were awarded, not everyone can have an article here, I'm sure there are plenty of military databases (including wikis) that can or already do provide coverage. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails SIGCOV, SOLDIER. Heck, there was a recent AfD where the keep vote hinged on a bridge being named after the subject, but in the (small) city where I live, there are bridges named after city councilors, a long-vanished United Spanish War Veterans post, and a 19 year old private who stepped on a land mine three weeks in country in Vietnam. In any event, there is no notability standard on Wikipedia for having a street named after you. Ravenswing 16:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this person fails SIGCOV and SOLDIER. Having a street or whatever named after them isn't enough for notability. So, I see no guideline based reason to have an article about the person. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject does not meet inclusion or notability guidelines. WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The article makes no claim to anything that would be notable. Fails the WP:SIGCOV portion of WP:GNG: the sources do not discuss the subject in depth. Same for WP:BASIC. WP:BEFORE shows this is a perfectly ordinary person, certainly honorable and hard working, but ordinary and not notable. // Timothy :: talk 21:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (weakly). – Joe (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Weibel[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 15:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This one is tough for me. I was prepared to !vote straightforwardly to delete, until I saw this book, which looks like an RS to me (to the extent any work on magic can be an RS). There's some fairly detailed critical commentary on Weibel's "Annotated Bibliography of Conjuring Psychology" there—which made me think about WP:NAUTHOR as a criterion. This was the only source I could find where Weibel's work is discussed, however, hence my still being in the delete column. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I see that he was an authority in his field - which meets WP:ANYBIO. He authored a book: Conjuring Psychology, additionally he appears in several books: Handbook of American Popular Culture, Volume 2 p.685, Magic: A Reference Guide p.167. Also based on his appearance on the cover of [[4]] Lightburst (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I'm not seeing a whole lot of coverage out there. AleatoryPonderings's source would be persuasive, if there was anything else by the way of sigcov I could see; I'm not just going to take one (NN) author's word for the subject's importance. Ravenswing 23:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

18:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I agree with the other weak delete reasons. One source is good, but not enough to satisfy the notability guidelines. Unfortunately, the few brief mentions he seems to have in other stuff seems like notability weak sauce. That said, I think it would be fine to delete it with the ability for it be recreated when or if another in-depth source materializes at some point. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge It's borderline on guidelines; some calibration should be made that less sources from the are on-line. IMO it's encyclopedic and should be in Wikipedia somewhere.North8000 (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep : Lightburst sums up my feelings. He does seem to meet WP:ANYBIO. His magazine writing seems to indicate he has importance in his field. He has brief mentions in multiple RS and [WP:BASIC]] states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" He may pass WP:NAUTHOR, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Under WP:BIO, " "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"; I think he meets this. The article is certainly notable for being the first one where I vote "Keep" and AleatoryPonderings votes "Delete" ;) // Timothy :: talk 21:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep, but the article needs work. Sources exist to show GNG but the article would eventually need to reflect that. Tone 19:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Father Florian[edit]

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

This is a contested prod. This person is supposed to be a prince, but he was born long after Germany became a republic and nobility there was abolished. It has been suggested that he is notable because of his missionary work. However he is only a prior, a rather junior post in the Roman Catholic hierarchy, I suggest that to be inherently notable you would have to hold some pretty senior post like Superior General of the Society of Jesus. PatGallacher (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The rationale for deletion is, if I may say so, irrelevant to assessing notability. It’s coverage in reliable sources we are interested in, what can the nominator tell us about this? A quick search shows there are articles about him in Yahoo News, Münchner Merkur, Abendzeitung. Are we saying he is not notable because of what’s in the sources, or because of his junior royal and religious positions, or both? - dwc lr (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the above sources covering him, he has also been the subject of a 45 minute tv documentary ‘Pater Florian von Bayern – Die ungewöhnliche Mission des Wittelsbacher Prinzen’ so as I’m unsure on the grounds we are saying he lacks notability I’ll go with a keep. - dwc lr (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete There's nothing about his actual position that is notable, and his membership in a family of defunct nobility is especially irrelevant considering that he is (one presumes) celibate and likely to remain so. The latter familial relationship is the only real claim to notability made, anyway. Mangoe (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

18:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with dwc lr.Cape Diamond MM (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The opening comment requiring Superior-General status of a major religious order for religious notability is an extreme and indefensible statement. Sources show that he is Prior of a Benedictine monastery and working in a mission country (Kenya), then the article merits notability. Whiteguru (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DWC LR. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs work. As a published author and missionary who has been written about in various news media, I think he is notable enough. Referencing is terrible for a BLP, though. Some possible sources: [5] [6] [7]. I think the article should not dwell too much on "royalty" and maybe use an infobox more suitable for monks / priests, though. —Kusma (t·c) 22:46, 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. Tone 19:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lorena Rae[edit]

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

I'm struggling when I look both at this article and its references to see why this person has genuine notability. Models are ten a penny. Cover girls are ten a penny, and I see nothing about this lady that changes my mind. Does she inherit some sort of notability from Victoria's secret? Somehow I doubt that Fiddle Faddle 21:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 21:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 21:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Truth be told I tried to get this thing nuked while it was still even a draft (and I got yelled at for that). But. Take out the “she’s Leonardo DiCaprio’s best girl” aspect (et tu, Vogue?), take the modeling accomplishments that just barely get her on board such as the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show, Maxim, or L’Oreal, the fact reminds that she has enough significant coverage in both Germany and America that pay attention to her career just a bit more than her Hollywood exploits. For that, she passes GNG. Trillfendi (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the claims to notability are substantive. Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a gossip rag.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep per significant coverage. Fish and karate (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not posted by me. Fish+Karate 10:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Special:Diff/970960061 stuck one was forged. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep Per above. Mogo803 (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

18:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. NavjotSR (talk) 16:50, 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. czar 04:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Win or Lose (TV show)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find anything other than some passing mentions. Look at username, looks like someone from/associated with Bongo BD are creating those for promotional purpose. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per the sources in the article. --Fish and karete (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Striking sock !vote[reply]

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

Salvio

17:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Examining the cited sources: bbarta24, The Sangbad, and Daily Amar Sangbad are three regurgitations of a publicity release. English-language versions can be read, by those with strong stomachs, at [8] and [9]. Dhaka18 and Bangi News are passing mentions of the title in a list of an actress' work and a list of upcoming dramas. Searches of the usual types found no significant coverage in independent sources. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of TV production data. To provide encyclopedic value, Wikipedia puts data in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. It treats creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. No prejudice against recreation if sources are ever found that allow us to do that. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thanks to the source breakdown of Worldbruce above. A key component to show notability, a reception section, is also missing. -2pou (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:43, 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. Tone 19:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TV CPLP[edit]

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

I do not see any reliable sources to indicate this proposed TV channel ever was created. Raymie (t • c) 17:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 17:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 17:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 17:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This entry in an encyclopedia published by SAGE Publishing claims that it was broadcasting in Cape Verde as of 2016. Unclear if notable though. WP:BROADCAST suggests we're pretty forgiving with articles about TV channels, but I'd want at least a few more sources to vote keep. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. There's an article on the RTP saying that its launch would be delayed to October 2007 [10], and a blog telling it's a future project in 2019 [11]. That's too few to meet WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 19:47, 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 no consensus, after extended time for discussion, with the recent trend of participation being more towards keeping. BD2412 T 00:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Reality Era[edit]

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

Largely a duplication of material from History_of_WWE#The_Reality_Era_(2013–2016). There seems to be a few extra sentences towards the end, but not enough to justify its own article. No establishment of notability in a way that isn't already covered in History of WWE — Czello 10:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Czello 10:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its at raw stage, people are welcomed to change it and add more content and make it Wikipedia standard, as with the Attitude Era, which is also part of History of WWE article. But I am neither supporting/opposing deletion, staying neutral due to some time frame dispute on WP:PW. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an essay, and not even an essay disguised as an article, but an essay in article space. It doesn't help that I disagree with many of the opinions expressed within. Makes me want to correct it, rather than comprehend it, or assume terrible things about the sort of people who'd nod along with the author(s). Easier to eventually uneditorialize if it's only in one place. Going to need more commas and italics, too, if left doubled. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Too short of a era in WWE to have its own article. It should remain in the History of WWE article. The New Era, Ruthless Aggression era, and the PG era could potentially merit their own articles, however. DrewieStewie (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be willing to improve this article tremendously if given some time.68.196.72.173 (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You've got ~140 hours left :) (Redacted) 12:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTIMELIMIT. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will come back here and note when I am finished — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.72.173 (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passing mentions only, not nearly the significance of the Attitude Era or the Rock 'n' Wrestling period. Seriously, we don't need to give everything an article just because some WWE marketing blurb used a term! oknazevad (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am still working on the article, but in the event it decides to be deleted, PLEASE at the very least let's move some of my information into the Reality Era section of 'History of WWE' page. Thank you.68.196.72.173 (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mentioned in many reliable sources, including an analysis of the era in Baltimore Sun: [12], a mention on ESPN: [13], a mention on NBC: [14], an in-depth discussion in the Denver Post: [15], and an in-depth discussion on the era in a book from Indiana University Press: [16]. While some of the information may be repeated in the History of WWE article, these sources certainly show potential for expansion. Per WP:NOTIMELIMIT, deleting the article would not be appropriate, as the article should not be judged just on current state, but on future potential. Per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, editors stating their reasons as the era was too short or not as important as other eras are citing personal opinions, which hold no weight against WP:GNG, which is clearly met with the sources mentioned here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have finished my editing and improvement of this page for now. If anyone wants to clean it up to look a little better, by all means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.72.173 (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After taking GaryColemanFan's points into accounts, considering how popular Daniel Bryan was back in 2014, how his WM 30 victory was reported in famous news papers all over the world, how WM 32 crossed 100,000 + attendance figure the highest in WWE history, I am voting keep, although I will be fine with whatever the majority decides, if it gets deleted I have no problem, but considering articles like Persona and reception of Roman Reigns are allowed (which appears to be nothing but a hate fiction and should be merged with the actual wrestler), I don't see how this article is more offensive than WP:NPOV and WP:OR breaking articles like those, that have been kept. Dilbaggg (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a very much talked about and referenced era with quite a few notable things taking place including the rise Daniel Bryan and Roman Reigns, both of which were covered by big news outlets at the time, especially Bryan. 68.196.72.173 (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Czello. A duplication of the History of WWE. Also, it's a time period too short. 33 sources, but just 5 of them mentions the Reality Era and the 5 sources are unreliable. The era exist, but there is not enough coverage for an independent article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added three of the sources I mentioned above (Denver Post, Baltimore Sun, and the book from Indiana University Press). I feel that the discussions in these sources could help develop this article, so I hope that placing them in the article itself will help this page reach its potential. I also believe that the article now meets GNG, not only in potential but in execution, as these sources discuss the era in enough detail to meet notability guidelines. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's time to wrap this up. Most of the concerns have been addressed, as multiple in-depth reliable secondary sources have been added since the delete votes were cast. Other concerns (e.g. the minimum length of time to be considered an "era") are not tied to notability. Can an administrator please take a look at this and do more than a simple vote count? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of whether the provided sources constitute substantive coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still see many problems with the article. As I said on the Wikiproject talk page, the Reality Era hasn't enough coverage. Some articles say the Reañity Era exist, but it's too soon for a coverage like Attitude or Ruthless Eras. The article just focuses on the storylines (Daniel Bryan and The Shield), but not about WWE as company. The "notable events" are WP:OR. There is any source about Taker vs Wyatt as a notable event for the Reality Era? There are sources, for example, the Hardys/E&C/Dudleys as a notable part of the Attitude Era. Also, my major problem is the "end". The Reality Era ended jsut because WWE said so, failing into WP:PUBLICITY. We are just repeating what WWE said, but I don't see many sources following the "Reality Era ended in 2016", just a few exceptions following what WWE said. My point, there are not enought coverage of the Reality Era (the era, not the events during the era) for a independent article since the era hasn't been covered yet. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. Notability still hasn't been established. None of the sources detail why the Reality Era was notable in its own right, or what part it played in pro wrestling history. The article seems to simply be a history lesson. — Czello 12:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not established in the Wikipedia article, or not established in the sources provided? There's a huge difference. The Wikipedia article definitely needs work, but that's not part of the criteria for WP:N. The sources provided discuss the era in detail, which is what matters for this discussion. Your comments are all focused on specific statements in the Wikipedia article, which shows a lack of understanding of AfDs altogether. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do detail the era itself, but I can't see which ones establish why it's notable to the point of it having its own article. — Czello 16:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out about notability, who are Wikipedia editors to decide notability?WP:OR isn't allowed, if WP:RS considers it notable, than it is. There are plenty of WP:RS which notes the significance of what happened during this particular period. The article has also been improved from its old status. And this article is far significant following WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR guidelines than the hate fiction in the name of an article that is Persona and reception of Roman Reigns. The existence of which has been questioned numerous times, and here is how it survived deletion and the grounds for keeping it:

Delete If it exists in such details, s should that of Lex Luger, John Cena, Stone Cold, The Rock, Hulk Hogan, Bret Hart and LOTS of others. I think it's stupidity to keep and doesn't seem neutral. ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. We could and should have articles on a bunch of similar subjects... on a personal level, Cena killed my interest in WWE over a decade ago, and I know I'm not the only one who stopped watching around that time. We could have similar articles on everyone from Big Daddy to Mil Mascaras to Triple H, it's just a matter of getting editors together to make such an article and getting the sources to do it. Both are harder to do with historic subjects; the exception here was that this was written as the push was occurring, so fan interest was at its peak and sources were fresh and easy to find. I'll note that this article has survived an AfD, merge request and a similar RfC.LM2000 (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Unlike that article The Reality Era is a well sourced material that has notability within the scopes of WP:Rs. Deleting it just because a bunch editors feel like its not notable is a pure WP:NOR violation. And a few of those voted delete only saw the premature version, the article is far more improved now complying with Wikipedia guidelines and well structured. The rest of my point why it should be kept is already highlighted in my previous keep comment. Thats all I have to say. Dilbaggg (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out which sources you believe establish notability to the point of this being its own article? No one here is arbitrarily deciding it doesn't have notability, we're saying the sources don't establish why it's important. — Czello 07:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[17] just to name one of many non primary sources listing its significance. not to mention Cena dominated WWE from 2005-2013, fans had been voicing the displeasure and with the rise of Daniel Bryan fans technically triggered the era leading to WM 30, WM 32 disputed 100,000 attendance the highest in WWE and any North American wrestling history and so on. Regardless this article is far more relevant, neutral, well sourced and wikipedia standard than the Reigns hate fiction article which I mentioned above, but has been kept regardless. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be largely repeating Daniel Bryan's own opinion on the Reality Era. It doesn't seem to be establishing the era's significance in a way that doesn't come from WWE's own voice. — Czello 12:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated repeatedly, the Denver Post and Baltimore Sun articles, along with the book from Indiana University Press establish notability. Notability is established according to WP:GNG. If, as you said, the multiple reliable secondary sources "detail the era itself," notability is established. When notability is established, a separate article is warranted. Please, please read WP:GNG. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world would we need more sources about the "End" of the era when WWE themselves, a source that should trump anything else, stated it themselves in May 2016?

because thats WP:publicity, just repeat what wwe says. WWE wants to promote a huge change and a new era, it doesnt mean a new era is real. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-HHH Pedrigree I see some biasedness against WWE from you, please remember WP:NPOV, just naming certain periods into specific era isn't a publicity violation. Also last time WWE named a new era was in 2016, a long time passed (attitude era only lasted 4 years, new era has already surpassed that length). WWE behaves differently, like in the Reality Era it revolved around Daniel Bryan the New Era is about the new brand extension and the women's evolution. The reality era in 2014 is not something WWE wanted to enter they never wanted to push Daniel Bryan but fans forced them to it so that further erases the publicity issue, as it was an era WWE only entered because they were forced to. Also remember WP:NOR it is not for editors to decide, not just wwe but secondary sources WP:RS also names those eras and these sources have been listed on the articles. Various non WWE sources cites those eras, so they are notable. Dilbaggg (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

im not against WWE, but against a WWE centric-pedia and Wikipedia as WWE speaker. WWE wanted to promote a "new era", but not many secondary sources agree with this. Also, several points are similar with the RE (bryan, Lesnar, Rollins, Ambrose and Reigns) and the most important point, the blur between fiction and reality. Again, WP:publicity. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your views, but I disagree with publicity like I said the reality era was something WWE never wanted but the fans, the yes movement forced them to accept the rise of Bryan in 2014, Austin, HHH, Rock debuted on new generation era, but they became big stars in Attitude Era, it never says that wrestlers cannot be in more than one era. Also there are plenty of sufficient non WWE RS that supports the reality era, as anyone who checks the article can see, and there are a lot more that are there but need not be included as there are already sufficient of them. Dilbaggg (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the Reality Era doesn't exist. Several Sources agree that the Reality Era exist. But is different from WWE saying "The reality Era ends in 2016 just because we want". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HHH Pedrigree WWE started to operate in a different way in 2016, Daniel Bryan was no longer the top huy which he was in Realty Era, WWE brought back the brand extension long after 2002 (last time it was the 2002 brand extension that started the Ruthless Aggression Era), and most of all since 2016 the women's evolution, rise of Becky and Charlotte is going on. In Reality Era women were still called divas, now its the womens division. Womens matches have more spotlight and are main events. There are also many non WWE sources that states 2016 as the start of the "New" Era, and since then it is ongoing, it is already longer than the 3 years 1993-1997's "New Generation Era". There are many non WWE RS like this, that clearly says new era begun in 2016: [18]. Anyway the main topic is not when the Reality era ended, but whether the article stays or gets deleted. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HHHPedigree, because WWE wants to promote and change to a new era that doesn't mean it's real? So what constitutes as real for a new WWE era? A dirt sheet site reporting on it? Lol. Am I missing something here? Or do you just hate WWE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.208.110 (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When the article was submitted for deletion it was in a very bad state, now it seems to have improved a lot and is well sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.8.130 (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to keep - I've changed my mind a few weeks later. Good thing this is still open. This article is much better sourced and I am now convinced at this subject being important enpugh to warrant its article, GNG has been satisfied in my eyes. I see this AfD as an important precedent to creating more articles specifically about WWE eras, and possibly other promotions should they arise. Major kudos to those who worked on this article and convinced me at it being important wnough to wrestling for its own article. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 12:15, 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 no consensus. I wish that keep favoring editors would have followed the prodding Vanamonde and explained how the sources do meet our guidelines. Delete favoring editors did tend to explain why the sources were insufficient. However, there is enough analysis explaining how sources are compliant with our policies and guidelines to suggest it would be improper to discount the weight of those editors and so we end up at no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown Bagelry[edit]

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

NN company, fails WP:CORP. There's coverage in strictly local sources, but this fails WP:AUD for lacking significant coverage in reliable sources outside the DC area. Notability tagged for over a decade. Created by a SPA for whom this was the sole Wikipedia activity.

Deprodded with the breathtaking rationale of "I mainly recalled being taken to a bagel shop in Brick Lane by Edward after an all-night editathon. That is reasonably notable and so I supposed that this other place is too." (Honestly, it would be tough to respond without the use of obscenities, so I shan't.) Ravenswing 17:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable as there's plenty of coverage in numerous sources. These tend to highlight the fact that the bagels are properly boiled and so this makes it better than most other bagel places. The current proprietor seems to be getting quite a lot of coverage because she's written a book about her experiences. And there's coverage of the place's history too such as this article from the 1980s, which has lots of nice crunchy facts, detailing the finances, numbers and equipment used to make their good bagels. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N I did some work to the article - added RS and fixed, layout, added a logo etc. I am able to find abundant RS: we follow the RS. Lightburst (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Splendid. Now, perhaps you folks can take a look at WP:AUD, which this article must satisfy: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." What NON-DC area reliable source providing substantive coverage do either of you claim exists? Ravenswing 06:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The DC area is a region. It spans several states – the business in question is in Maryland. Its population is over six million which makes it larger than most countries in the world – bigger than Denmark and New Zealand, say. Sources such as the Washington Post are effectively international because here I am in London, on the other side of the Atlantic, and I regular read and refer to it. The business is also covered in works such as Fodor's which are distributed internationally too. Note also that there's no "must" about WP:AUD because it says plainly that exceptions apply and so it is not mandatory. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some good RS the RSs speak to notability. Lightburst (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The improved version with sources including the Washington Post provide enough notability for this bagel business that has been in existence for 39 years. We should not just be covering large companies, some small ones can also be notable. Edwardx (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the rationale that the Washington Post is a regional source per Andrew Davidson's interpretation. The improvements to the article solidify this. PainProf (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTPROMO. The best bagels in Washington, according to local Washington newspapers? There is no coverage outside the DC area (as far as I know), and that is what makes it local coverage. WaPo is actually a national source, but when it's covering stuff in DC, it's a local source. This article, even in its expanded form, is nothing other than an advertisement for a bagel shop. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In reviewing the sources, I see now that the Washington Post never said it had the best bagels. In fact, WaPo barely covers it at all, outside of the 1981 opening [19]. Here's a more recent 2014 WaPo story about bagelries, and the headline is "Bullfrog Bagels, Bagel City and Bethesda Bagel are some of D.C.’s finest" [20]. (Should we turn those red links blue? No, of course not.) The Washingtonian Magazine also never called it "the best". In fact, it only rated it "not bad" [21], in 2006. I updated the article to remove those incorrect claims in the lead, and I upgrade my !vote to strong delete. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the improvements made to the article. Pesa881 (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are all very local, no indication of notability for a global encyclopedia. Newspaper rates them as, "Not bad"? Wins third/second place in various voter polls? This is more a promotional ad than anything else. Ifnord (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Washington Post article is excellent coverage, but if you need coverage outside the DC area, then I think the coverage of Adler's book about the business does the trick. I think the above scuffle about whether the bagels are "the best" or "not bad" is irrelevant; notability is not determined by tasting the subject's food. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Adler is the owner. Her book can't contribute to notability, as it's not independent, and thus doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. There is no coverage outside DC. Even if we accept WaPo as excellent coverage, that's one, and we'd need multiple. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the coverage about her book, in the Washingtonian and Bake Magazine. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Her book appears to be published by a vanity press called Advantage that writes on their "what we do" page: Book authorship, for personal promotion, to create powerful ‘lead generation magnets’ for use in advertising and marketing, for securing favorable media attention and publicity, to promote a business, a cause or philosophy, for fun or fame or fortune…is the most proven, most powerful activity a person can take. Did you read that? The most proven, most powerful activity a person can take is vanity publishing. Well, they should try encyclopedia writing!

Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can be even less than a self-published book: it could be a Twitter post for all we care. The reliability of the primary source being discussed by secondary sources has no bearing on the reliability of the secondary sources. I've taken a look at the coverage of the book, and plenty of it is usable for content on the bakery. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utter spam. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Reader's polls on "best bagel" are mentions-in-passing and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Someone mentioned above that the coverage about the owner's book but misses the point that none of the information is therefore Independent Content and fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable as there's plenty of coverage in numerous sources. Meet WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lots of Keep comments saying things like "plenty of coverage", "abundant RS", "excellent coverage" etc. This isn't about volume but quality and "coverage" or "RS" isn't one of the criteria for establishing notability. Neither are reviews of their bagels which don't include in-depth coverage of the company (the topic of this article). Neither are interviews, or mentions-in-passing. Can any of the Keep !voters point to what they regard as the two best references that meet the criteria so we can get a final chance to evaluate? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of whether the provided sources offer substantive coverage and are independent of the subject. Despite many !votes to keep, there is precious little discussion of the source material.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources appear to be either local coverage or self-promotional. I do not believe they demonstrate notability about this business. I agree with the reasons stated by previous delete votes. Rhino131 (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references every one of them are either local or spam. Thecriterion for restaurants has to be notable outsidetheir region, or we'd become a directory or every restaurant in a city with a major newspaper. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason to discount the Washington Post as a "local" source. If a Topeka business were covered in a Kansas statewide paper, then it would clearly meet the definition of "regional" in WP:AUD. I don't see why coverage of an area with a population of over 6 million should be inferior to coverage of an area with a population of less than 3 million, so IMO the Washington Post is a regional source for the DC metropolitan area (a region). That source, along with the local coverage in WTOP, combine to constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, at least one of which is more than local. I am sympathetic to DGG's point about "a directory or every restaurant in a city with a major newspaper", but likewise we can ask: Do we want to be a directory of every restaurant in a small state with a statewide paper? Currently, WP:AUD says yes, and to go against it would either be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, or require believing that the media market of a major metropolitan area is not as important as the media market of a small state. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable company with several locations. The article has some very good sources, and they demonstrate notability: two magazines, and several Washington Post references. Wm335td (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources aren't good enough, as DGG says, and none of the Keep rationales can get past this. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MILL local business with no coverage from outside its region. Sandstein 20:03, 23 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 04:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evi Adam[edit]

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

BLP without any actual references. Rathfelder (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 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) 17:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:44, 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Doellefeld[edit]

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

Fails both the WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS guidelines. Attempts to comply with WP:BEFORE demonstrate that the only sources on this person are to either generic database entries (e.g., transfrmrkt), social media, (LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.) or roster pages (e.g., University of Tulsa, SoccerSTL). There are actually zero GNEWS hits. There is no evidence in the article or in searches that this person has played in a fully-professional league. Their professional career has so far been limited to the National Premier Soccer League, a semi-professional league. Of the 7 references given, 4 do not mention the player at all, 1 is a high school sports box score from the local paper, 1 is a signing announcement, and 1 a very short article from his alma mater. None of this qualifies as significant, independent, and reliable. At the very best, this can be considered WP:TOOSOON. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based upon precisely the rationale of the nominator. When the gentleman's career takes off he may have an article written about him here. One of the references fails to open for me. The others are not much more than regurgitated PR material. It feels like WP:ADMASQ. Fiddle Faddle 17:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination rationale. Its seems to be spam.scope_creep^Talk 17:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as per all the users above. Hasn't played higher than the NPSL Members Cup, which is not a WP:FPL, and no coverage found to meet GNG. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater@ 09:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further Analysis In the spirit of full disclosure, I am updating the nom with some more analysis. If you don't care about soccer/football organizational politics, feel free to skip this. I have received off-wiki communication claiming that Tony Doellefeld does qualify under NFOOTY because the Milwaukee Torrent are part of the NPSL Founders Cup and therefore a FPL. The NPSL Founders Cup was an attempt to create a professional subdivision within the NPSL that ran into great difficulty and was abandoned in favor of the NPSL Members Cup that Keskkonnakaitse mentions above. The Members Cup is overseen by the United States Adult Soccer Association, a sanctioning body for amateur soccer. This does not change the original analysis but does explain why there was a reference or two to Doellefeld signing a professional contract. TL;DR version: Doellefeld still never has played for a FPL, but there was reason at one point for him to think he was going to. Apologies for any confusion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:45, 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. T. Canens (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haberler.com[edit]

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

Fails to have sufficient coverage, Non Notable website. Dtt1^Talk 10:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 10:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete it fails WP:WEB and also lacks independent sources. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC) *Draftify after reading the opinions of LadyofShalott and Keivan.f, i am ok with draftification. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A mediocre Turkish news website just like Yeniçağ, BirGün and Vatan. It seems logical to not find any sources other than the website itself, which website is going to advertise its competitor? ~Styyx (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt is a Turkish news site. and ranked by Alexa 1420, Hi can you give us your opinion and delete this discussion if you accept the article User:LadyofShalott this page also has a page in Turkish and French --Omar albayrak (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m not entirely sure why my opinion was sought here, but I neither have any expertise in this matter, nor do I read Turkish, in which language I would guess most possible sources would be listed. I am at this point at least going to remain neutral on the deletion, but I would suggest the article creator try to find additional references to show notability of the site. I did look at the French and Turkish articles to see if either could serve for expansion or providing additional references, but it does not appear that way (and each language wiki has its own notability requirements). One possible solution would be to move the article to draft space for further development. LadyofShalott 18:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but "leaning" towards a keep because the website is among the popularly viewed mediocre news websites in Turkey, so that would make it kinda notable. Keivan.f^Talk 08:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. This website is marked with ((Notability)) in Turkish Wikipedia. I'm not sure if it's notable or not.--evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I take the point that it may be logically impossible to find RS references about a news portal, but I don't know if that's enough of a justification to get around the notability requirements? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify To give the creating editor a chance to at least try to find sources (I tried, and failed), I'd say let's draftify this, or at least not delete in haste. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The biggest problem is that Haberler.com means "News.com". When you search it you simply get Turkish news, even from other publishers. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 15:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original editor is blocked as a sockpuppet. Who will be editing this article if it is to be moved to draftspace? @DoubleGrazing, LadyofShalott, and TheBirdsShedTears (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 20:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. :) I've changed my earlier draftify to delete. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the editor is blocked then there is no reason to draftify this article. Delete this. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this doesn't seem notable enough to pass the guidelines. Maybe a case could be made that news websites will inherently fail the standard or whatever, but I don't think this AfD is the place to legitimate it. It's not like the article can't be recreated at some point if an exception is ever made anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on my mini research, it seems there is no source available to show its notability. The other news publications mentioned above, however, have at least one notable event. There is not much about this at the moment. This can be brought back in later as said by Adamant1. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 15:42, 19 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. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Bahram[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)).

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous article on this singer was deleted two months ago, after a robust discussion of the true meaning of reliable sources and the notability requirements for musicians, with some misunderstandings from supporters. The article was then recreated with an attempt at additional sources, by the same user who created the last one, and this person continues to miss the significance of the WP guidelines. The new addition this time is news about a petition that she signed, but in the Persian-language sources used as verification, she is only listed briefly among many other signers. Otherwise this version of the article is dependent on typical industry listings with no verification for statements on her popularity and influence. Nothing else can be found under either the Persian or English spellings of her name beyond what was in the previous version. Salting may also be necessary. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also [22], indicting that User:Gimbouri created both versions of the article and ignored the previous community decision. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Hello, Ava Bahram is famous in the Iranian community inside and outside the country. Unfortunately, female artists in Iran after the Islamic Revolution are censored in newspapers, magazines and other domestic media due to censorship and restrictions imposed by the laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and for this reason they emigrate from Iran. And their only media is satellite TV channels and social media outside of Iran. Also 3 of Ava Bahram's songs with the letters "Roozhaye Tanhaei", "Agooshe To" and "Gol ya Pooch" have been broadcasted in the Gem TV channels in the 3 years and got a megahit. please Attention considering that by Islamic laws it is forbidden for female singers to broadcast their voices on the national television of the Islamic Republic of Iran , and in this regard their songs have been broadcasted on Gem TV channels and others Persian-language satellite TV channels, such as PMC, Radio Javan, and others. so there are good reasons. I researched this in the case of other Iranian female singer who also have an article. There are two reputable sources, one is the interview and performance of Ava Bahram on BBC TV and the other is the interview and live performance of Ava Bahram on Manoto TV. Of course, I tried to insert the link of websites for you here, but unfortunately it was not possible, But with the same titles are available in YouTube . Because she has migrated outside of Iran due to the ban on women's singing in the Islamic Republic of Iran, she is merely the only sources available on radio and television and reputable websites outside of Iran to cover their activities.

Thanks. Gimbouri (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat from Previous Deletion Discussion - There have been several recent AfDs for Iranian entertainers (musicians, models, etc.) in which supporters are making the argument that we see here. Per that argument, the entertainers have no media coverage in their home country because of government repression, and therefore the entertainers are little-known in the rest of the world too. I have no doubt that this is happening and it is certainly unfortunate, but that is a problem that is much bigger than Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not equipped to fix it. The larger problem could be discussed at Censorship in Iran, among other possibilities, but helping to promote unlucky entertainers is not one of Wikipedia's functions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you. I am glad that you are so in control of the existing rules and restrictions for artists and journalists in Iran. Unfortunately, these restrictions are especially for Iranian female singers because the voice of women is forbidden in Islam. The point of my argument is that in this particular case, Wikipedia policies and guidelines should not be strict in order to gain the recognition of Iranian female artists.Gimbouri (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have requested a change to Wikipedia policy, which must take place somewhere else. This discussion is about the notability of Ava Bahram, and therefore her eligibility for Wikipedia, which still has not been demonstrated by you or anyone else. For larger policy changes, see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep she is very famous in the Iranian music community. We have seen many TV programs of her live performances and interviews. She has a special style among Iranian singers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocoyo4858 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Admins - To any admin reading this, please note that all of the keep votes in this and the previous AfD have said little beyond claiming that the singer is famous, without acknowledgement of the Wikipedia policies cited by the nominators and other voters. Also, the two other users in this AfD have done little else in Wikipedia beyond adding to Ava Bahram's article or commenting on her AfDs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment please look at the article No: 11 and 12 of WP:MUSICBIO, because of megahit song by name Roozhaye Tanhaei, interviews and live performances in severals TV she has notability by Wikipedia's policies Thanks.Pocoyo4858 (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep Considering the large number of broadcasts of song Roozhaye Tanhaei(the title track of the Turkish serial Fatmagül'ün Suçu Ne?), on the TV channels of the largest Persian-language television network (gem TV), it can be said that Ava Bahram's public fame is achieved and it's In accordance with policies and guidelines (articles No: 11 and 12 of WP:MUSICBIO). Gimbouri (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gimbouri has now voted twice, which is not allowed; that user and Pocoyo4858 have made claims of notability with no evidence except for claiming that they saw the singer on TV. Both made the exact same arguments multiple times with the exact same lack of evidence in the first AfD for this singer. Both are just pointing at policies. I have nothing against Ava Bahram and wish her luck, but she doesn't get into Wikipedia because someone thinks she's unlucky. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yours sincerely, You claim that Ava Bahram is not well known, but here the issue of Ava Bahram's reputation is evaluated solely on the basis of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I think this is not a question of the number of votes, but a place for analysis and consultation at all. Unfortunately, a great artist like Ava Bahram has somehow fallen victim to a dictatorial regime and has been forced to emigrate due to censorship and a ban on expressing her art. My information about her knowledge of reading the information available from her is limited to existing websites and especially listening to her works of art. I wish you were familiar with the Persian language and enjoyed their meaningful, rich and artistic songs. I have seen many comments on social media that a large number of frustrated and depressed Persian-speaking women and youth have come to life hopefully after hearing Ava Bahram's songs. This is not my personal opinion. It may be meaningless for you, who probably do not live in the Third World and have not experienced the psychological pressures of dictatorial regimes. Regards Gimbouri (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish someone else would help me stand up for all of English Wikipedia here. Final Comment: The article's supporter has resorted to begging for sympathy, yet another ploy that is not supported by Wikipedia policy. Perhaps someone will notice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment to admins As a Wikipedia editor, I first and foremost believe in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I am not willing to violate my beliefs just by submitting an article. In all my comments in defense of Ava Bahram's article, I link my reasons to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In this particular article, for the information of users and administrators, I must mention the limitations that I had during the collection of article information. I have said very clearly and simply that in the society under study, there were restrictions such as information and news censorship compulsorily for the news support of Ava Bahram and female artists in general. Certainly where, despite the dictatorship, the prohibition of women singing, and censorship, all of which have led to the emigration of the subject matter from the homeland, one has to be a little more flexible in adapting resources to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And this demand should not be called as begging the author of the article. Before emigrating, Ava Bahram sent a critical and open letter to the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran asking for the government's support for her activities, but unfortunately, instead of supporting her, she was summoned to court for her singing and music skills and in accordance with Islamic law. She has been convicted and harassed. Regards Gimbouri (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel very sorry for her but unfortunately she is (still) not notable for Wikipedia. The policy of Wikipedia is to have reliable, secondary sources which are absent here. I also did a Google search and couldn't find anything besides the standard social media pages, streaming service entries, lyrics sites, retail sites and blogs. None of them establish any notability. I don't read or speak Persian but I also did a Google search with her native name and the sources were basically the same except in Iranian/Persian. And the users above (with the exception of Doomsdayer of course) did little more than commenting on this singer's AFD and editing her article. These users (I actually have a suspicion that "these users" are just one user using sockpuppets which is not allowed on Wikipedia - so for that reason I am going to address him as just "user"). So, this user has tried to convince the participants of this (and the previous) AfD about the importance of Ava Bahram, stating stuff like "she is very popular in Iran" and "she has a megahit" but he did not provide any sources to these statements. Without reliable sources, there is no WP article. Streaming service links, social media pages, lyrics sites, blogs and databases are not reliable. I feel very sorry about the fact that she is oppressed in Iran, that is horrible, but as of now she is not notable for WP inclusion. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GhostDestroyer100 makes an excellent case for why. I'd also add that trying to give her a notability pass because she comes from Iran and they have strict controls on the media etc etc etc "blah blah blah or whatever" is sort of the soft bigotry of low exceptions. There's plenty of articles about notability people from Iran. Including women. So, she shouldn't get a special pass simply because of where she comes from. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you did not read the article correctly and wrote something based solely on the opinions of others.Gimbouri (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doomsdayer520 and Adamant1. Specifically, biographies of living people have to be well researched and sourced, and this article just doesn't cut it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

about your comment also the same I'm sure you did not read the article correctly and wrote something based solely on the opinions of others. Gimbouri (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did. To show I have, I have tagged a contentious claim in the article with a ((fact)) tag. Again, WP:BLPSOURCES says that this information should not be tagged, it should be removed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Ava Bahram has the conditions to have an article, and I tried to register her name in Wikipedia on the birthday of this great and oppressed Iranian artist. But apparently for some users, this recognition has not been achieved. Unfortunately for some great artists, this is becoming a way to be known later in life. There have been many people in history who have been known for years after their lives.Gimbouri (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just doesn't meet the GNG or WP:BIO. To quote myself from a 2010 AfD, "There is a school of thought circulating around Wikipedia that if there is some putative excuse for reliable sources not to be found on a particular subject, the requirements of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:GNG and/or WP:BIO are suspended. This curious notion has no basis in policy or guideline." The only acceptable response to the suggestion that this article lacks adequate sourcing because the lives of Iranian women are out of the public eye is "Then a Wikipedia article on her cannot be sustained." Ravenswing 17:04, 21 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) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isuzu Giga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is poorly written and has no reliable third party sources covering it. Wiki is better off with stub quality articles like these. There seems to be no improvement even when the article was reinstated with sources. U¹ _quattro TALK 15:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. U¹ _quattro TALK 15:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added a few sources to the article[23] which IMHO are sufficient, There are also a whole ton more on Google News[24] which I'll add in due course, The article needs work however that's not a reason to delete, Clearly a notable subject. Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even if we delete the crufty bits there will be enough of a stub left to be considerably better than no article. Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – searching for coverage in Japanese does seem to turn up some seemingly significant and reliable coverage, such as [25]. I was able to find some English-language coverage as well ([26], [27]), and there seems to be a fair amount in Indonesian (although I'm unclear on its reliability or depth). That having been said, I do want to note that the sources currently cited in the article, as well as its linked article in Japanese, are largely not independent, and I don't think that those sources establish GNG on their own. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the GNG part - The Japanese sources aren't actually that great and IMHO the English ones at the moment are the best we've found. –Davey2010^Talk 01:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then your assumption about GNG is incorrect Davey2010. Notability is not the sole reason to keep an article.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No shit sherlock!, Why do you think I've just agreed with his statement ?. Good grief. –Davey2010^Talk 11:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is no reason for the article to stay.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Main reason for deletion is the stub quality as well as the poor format. This seems more like a sales brochure listing everything that is available rather than explaining in detail about the truck, what are the special features etc. This is better off as a redirect because even when sources are cited, they are not third party sources.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither stub quality nor poor format are reasons to delete an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is however a solid reason for the deletion of this article Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This proposal for me doesn't actually scream any valid criteria for deletion but rather "article bad, delete lol". Other than this, per Mr.choppers and Rosguill. Ed talk! 05:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've since sourced the article - Most sources are Isuzu sources with a few Facebook ones and one For sale ad, There's thousands of sources on Google News[28] however the few there that can be used don't really have any place at the article at the moment. –Davey2010^Talk 19:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Davey2010 Facebook is not a reliable source. I suggest you remove those sources which link to Facebook.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Facebook is fine to use and more so when it confirms the vehicle exists, Unless you're happy to go to subscription websites to access material then the cites I've added can stay. –Davey2010^Talk 10:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see that finding source is the main issue here. Who knows one day there is someone who is very passionate with this topic that will find this article and could deliver good sources (likely in other languages). Andra Febrian (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was waffling between 'weak keep' and 'keep' here. Most of the sourcing is from primary sources, but there are a couple in there that are secondary. While Truck and Driver may not be wholly objective about the truck, I think there is enough there to establish GNG. We may be stymied by the lack of English coverage, but the Japanese sources indicate that there is significant coverage out there to warrant an article. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 19:43, 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. czar 19:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Animals of Farthing Wood characters[edit]

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

A huge, huge list of characters from the franchise The Animals of Farthing Wood, from the books and an animated series. Everything is completely in-universe and just retells the events from the characters' point of view. There is no actual encyclopedic information, i.e., creation, development, reception, cultural impact. There isn't a single reference. Suitable for a ~~wikia~~ Fandom page, not Wikipedia. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both the TV series and book series articles just point to this list, so we’d be merging at a minimum. See WP:ATD, which should have been considered WP:BEFORE attempting deletion. You don’t need permission to merge and redirect. postdlf (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Postdlf, recently I had several instances where a redirect was reverted (List of Simple series video games, List of Starship Troopers characters), so I went straight to AfD. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information about the animals is quite encyclopedic as it's likely to be what most readers want. And there's plenty of production information too such as first/last appearance and which media the character appeared in. As there's at least 8 pages about the various books and TV productions, it makes sense to have a list of characters like this as a common appendix, otherwise the information will be repeated in each of those articles. As for Fandom, that's a rival, profit-making concern which exists to exploit volunteer effort to sell advertising. Why does the nominator want to promote that? Do they have shares in it? Andrew🐉(talk) 16:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If the TV series just shared the characters with the book series, it can link back to that article if this is merged there. So long as the character descriptions are somewhere, as that is a necessary part of our coverage of a notable series or franchise. These character list AFDs always neglect to consider that and instead pick apart the page in isolation. Really a waste of our time. postdlf (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not encyclopedic information in the slightest, Andrew Davidson. There is no actual coverage about the characters beyond in-universe material. Wikipedia is written for the general reader, not for people wanting to find out what the first or last appearance is of a particular fictional character in a particular work of fiction. And why the hell are you randomly speculating that I have shares in Fandom? That's just weird not WP:AGF. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a gargantuan pile of original research that fails WP:LISTN by virtue of being completely unsourced, and WP:PLOT by virtue of being entirely in-universe. There is no evidence that the characters of this series have been subject to the analysis necessary to pass LISTN. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Holy crap, what a steaming heap of NOR violations. The nom and Devonian Wombat said it all, but let's add WP:V to this as well. I don't give a rat's ass what "production information" or "quite encyclopedic" content is in it if it isn't sourced at all. Ravenswing 09:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- nothing but a lot of unsourced, regurgitated plot summary. Reyk _YO! 09:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely unsourced and mostly WP:PLOT. Not enough coverage in third party sources to meet the WP:GNG, and nothing out-of-universe to meet WP:NOT#PLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 13:30, 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 speedy keep. I am withdrawing this nomination. This was a mistake. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asurankundu Dam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It exists, but I can't find any RS to verify the details in the article—so I don't think it meets WP:GEOLAND for named natural features or WP:GEOFEAT. The best I could do were these docs from the Kerala Gazette, but as far as I can tell they don't confirm the details here. I will happily withdraw this nom if anyone can find the relevant sources. AfD from last year closed as keep. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:22, 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) 20:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former German throne[edit]

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

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

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 20 lines of successions to defunct thrones that have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20). TompaDompa (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For all the reasons stated above. Also the question of whether some people are ruled out because of morganatic marriages is the sort of dispute which we should avoid getting into. The line of succession in 1918, although it might be possible to find an obscure source somewhere, is now trivial. PatGallacher (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no justification for removing this article, as there are those who support the return of the German throne. No theory has been advanced that suggests that any of those referenced do not have a legitimate claim to said throne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.241.226 (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You got it backwards. What's needed for this article to be valid is sources that WP:VERIFY the contents, not a lack of sources that contradict the contents. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there have been monarchist movements in some countries which do not take a firm view about who specifically they want restored to the throne, e.g. France, Russia. PatGallacher (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater@ 15:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep topic of important historic significance, even if it’s of less significance in 2020. This Article should inform about who was eligible to become German Emperor etc, article needs improving of that there is no doubt however. As to BLP, reliable sources exist which list members of the Royal Family, births are reported in the media. - dwc lr (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell me, who succeeded Wilhelm II as German Emperor when he died? That's right, nobody did. The line of succession is not of "less significance in 2020", it was already of no significance at all in 1941 (and frankly, in 1919). This article is a bunch of nonsense for the same reason it's a nonsense question to ask who succeeded the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson when he died in 1924, and especially to ask who is next in line to the Woodrow Wilson presidency today (which is the equivalent of Line of succession to the former German throne#Present line of succession). TompaDompa (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as we have other Defunct succession articles, of this nature. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and as noted in my nomination we have been deleting quite a few of them recently. TompaDompa (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Either you keep'em all or delete'em all. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - By my count we're about halfway to deleting them all. Shall we consider you in favour of deletion, then? TompaDompa (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Delete - very well, go for it. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fictional throne, as relevant as the succession to the throne of Gondor. —Kusma (t·c) 19:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I struggle to see how this article could be reliably, independently sourced, especially without using OR. A line of succession should by itself be notable and reported on in whole: taking disparate sources (e.g. birth announcements) and integrating them into a novel list via your interpretation of agnatic succession is blatant synthesis and OR. For this to be a workable article there would need to be third-party RS discussing the current line of succession--using those terms--that contain all the entries and their positions. JoelleJay (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no existing kingdom means no current rules for succession, rendering such a 'line of succession' WP:OR predicated on an alternative history in which the kingdom and hence its rules persist. Agricolae (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons stated above. This is very WP:OR and stuff invented and assumed rather than being compiled from fact. doktorb _words^deeds 07:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as should have been done ages ago. I presume that the claimed line of succession is based on the laws that existed immediately prior to the abolishment of this position. Who's to say that these precise rules would have persisted even if the position did? Even the UK, which has the reputation of being very conservative when it comes to the monarchy, has changed the rules at least twice in the last century (to exclude Edward VIII and any potential descendants and recently to grant equality of the sexes when it comes to succession). This is simply make-believe. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , OR fantasy. Smeat75 (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I agree that the "Present line of succession" section is problematic, as it represents pure speculation. Even if someone does manage to dig up a source which makes the same speculation I don't think it would be encyclopedic. However this argument doesn't apply to coverage of the line of succession to the actual German throne before its abolition, and this can be an encyclopedic topic, e.g. Succession to the British throne spends a large amount of time discussing historical succession. I think it's reasonable to delete this article though as that's not its intended scope. Hut 8.5 09:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose as Prussian royal family. Despite the loss of their throne, they remain a nobel family. The large number of people with blue links points to continuing notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? We already have House of Hohenzollern#Royal Prussian branch. TompaDompa (talk) 13:44, 16 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. Sandstein 07:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Bavarian throne[edit]

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

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

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 20 lines of successions to defunct thrones that have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20). TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For all the reasons stated above, and the line of succession in 1918, although it might be possible to find an obscure source somewhere, is now trivial. PatGallacher (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater@ 15:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keepor Merge with Rulers of Bavaria or House of Wittelsbach. As far as I can tell there are Reliable Sources within this article. The House of Wittelsbach still exists, it has a head of the House which is not some randomly decided position but one which is determined by a succession law. So what if the Kingdom does not exist? How did one become King when it did (hence the list of rulers may be a suitable merge target)? If the Spanish monarchy gets abolished today does that succession article get deleted the day after then? Or does it suddenly become unsuitable after a year, or 2 or 50. I would say it would always be of relevance to have an article covering the topic, same with Baden and others that have been deleted. -dwc lr (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, yes, if Spain became a republic tomorrow then any alleged line of succession to the throne would probably immediately become unencyclopedic, although we might still have articles on notable pretenders. Generally speaking, on Wikipedia we do not attempt to interpret succession laws ourselves, as this often means getting into original research. I would however put the opposite case: how long should we retain articles on royal families which were overthrown, should we do so indefinitely? PatGallacher (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The succession topics retain historic and even continuing (as the Royal Houses remain non reigning) significance. I don’t see any interpreting of succession laws just the reporting of facts. I’ve no idea what articles on deposed Royal families you are implying should be deleted? Maybe we should delete articles on defunct companies, businesses which become less and less relevant and of significance with each passing day. If a topic is notable the aim should be to cover it, whether it’s primary significance is from the present or in the past should not matter. - dwc lr (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you likewise be in favour of an article about the United States presidential line of succession during the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson? Because that's a more apt comparison – a line of succession that hasn't been in effect for approximately a century. Would you be in favour of an article about who would be next in line to the Woodrow Wilson presidency today? Because that is analogous to what this article purports to show, since it contains the "Current Line of Succession" (even though no such thing exists). TompaDompa (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don’t see much difference between that article or this in terms of the line of succession. There the succession is based on a post, here it’s a position placed on descent (available in Reliable Sources), I don’t see a reference explicitly saying William Barr is No. 7 in the US Presidential one. I would be in favour of US President succession article even if the post was abolished yes as its of historical relevance, as its not a hereditary post held by a Royal House there would not be a line of succession to it, like there is with Royal Houses which continue post deposition (again attributable to reliable sources). - dwc lr (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Without a kingdom to be heir to, there is no such thing as a line of succession to a kingdom. There may be a line of succession to leadership of the family, but without a kingdom attached to this, who the heirs are to the headship of a family that used to be important isn't really notable. Agricolae (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Im more than happy for the article to be moved. You say it’s not important but there is coverage about who the immediate heirs are. If you take the House of Saxony there is a bitter dispute over who is head of the family which has been widely reported in Germany. - dwc lr (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If that is the case then that is quite a good example of why we shouldn't have articles like this on Wikipedia, since we shouldn't take sides on these disputes ( although we might have articles on notable disputes). PatGallacher (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you familiar with WP:NPOV? - dwc lr (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there has to be an actual existing kingdom for there to be a line of succession to that kingdom. WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOR, WP:CRYSTAL, etc. Agricolae (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete', this is an editor-researched compilation of the likely future "head of the house of Wittelsbach". How that "head" is chosen is an internal affair of that family. The list appears to be completely unsourced speculation. —Kusma (t·c) 20:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Right now the only sourcing for the actual topic of this page (the current succession) appears to be the "Administration of the Duke of Bavaria" (the actual ref is an unverified publication(?) of this organization whose only search results are wiki mirrors and fan sites), which is definitely not independent and so does not demonstrate encyclopedic notability. Furthermore their website has the following disclaimer: The reproduction of information and data, in particular the use of texts, parts of texts, images and genealogy in whole and in part, require the prior consent of the Duke of Bavaria's administration, so it's unclear to what extent we are even allowed to provide the genealogical information. JoelleJay (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons stated above. This is very WP:OR and stuff invented and assumed rather than being compiled from fact. doktorb _words^deeds 07:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How can one be in line of succession to a throne, that no longer exists? GoodDay (talk) 11:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose to Bavarian royal family. I note there are articles on most members, so that an article explaining the links is worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:38, 16 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. Sandstein 07:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 20 lines of successions to defunct thrones that have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20). TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 15:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with List of rulers of Baden. As far as I can tell there are Reliable Sources within this article. The House of Baden still exists, it has a head of the House which is not some randomly decided position but one which is determined by a succession law. So what if the Grand Duchy does not exist? How did one become Grand Duke when it did (hence the list of rulers may be a suitable merge target)? If the Spanish monarchy gets abolished today does that succession article get deleted the day after then? Or does it suddenly become unsuitable after a year, or 2 or 50. I would say it would always be of relevance to have an article covering the topic, same with Baden and others that have been deleted. dwc lr (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If the Spanish monarchy is abolished, its line of succession ceases being an encyclopaedic topic immediately, in much the same way as the line of succession to the Presidency of Barack Obama did at the end of his presidency. TompaDompa (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The topic of the overall succession mechanisms to the US presidency would not though, even if the post was abolished. Yet we are seeing an attempt to delete numerous articles. As I said on the Austro-Hungarian AFD if people have a problem with one area discuss it on the talk page. The only sensible contribution is from Kusma, not one single other participant has addressed any other part of the article, they seem fixated on one particular area, which is most bizarre. Are we discussing the entire article or are we discussing one section of it. All the AFDs have focused on one part. - dwc lr (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the throne no longer exists, any "law" governing the succession of the "headship" of the House of Baden is an internal family affair and so this "line of succession" is pretty fictional. Merge pre-1918 content to List of rulers of Baden. —Kusma (t·c) 20:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no rules by which someone can draw up such a list, without assuming that rules that were abolished are somehow still in operation. It is WP:OR / alternative history. Agricolae (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current line of succession, which is the topic of this article, is sourced only to the 2008 edition of Debrett's Peerage. This 5-pound, 1000+-page book series is on the British royalty and nobility; as such, the extent of its information on a former German princely house is limited to how deeply it explores foreign collateral branches. It certainly isn't enough to demonstrate notability on its own (are all of the lineages listed in this book noteworthy?), so absent further independent coverage specifically on the current successorship positions, this article is unverifiable, non-notable OR. JoelleJay (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the reasons mentioned above here. Futurist110 (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons stated above. This is very WP:OR and stuff invented and assumed rather than being compiled from fact. doktorb _words^deeds 07:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How can one be in line of succession to a throne, that no longer exists? GoodDay (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Margraves of Baden, which seems to be the noble title that they now use, even if it is now an empty title. We have articles on every British peerage, so why not German ones? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because the English ones represent extant entities, with defined legal inheritance and concomitant (mostly non-voting) membership in the House of Lords, as opposed to just being 'titles the families now use'. A better comparison would be baronetages, which are essentially purchased inherited titles, but they likewise continue to be legally recognized entities in the nation in question. Agricolae (talk) 16:00, 16 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 19:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Walking the Room episodes[edit]

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

Non notable list of podcast episodes. Podcast episodes are not inherently notable. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 09:45, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of sovereign states and dependent territories in South America by median age of population[edit]

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

Violates WP:LISTN - data is already duplicated by other lists Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the kind of cross-section of information that has encyclopedic validity only if it is discussed in-depth in secondary sourcing. Otherwise, it's essentially OR. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Synthesis and original research. doktorb _words^deeds 07:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 07:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Lorstaking 14:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 19:50, 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) 17:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University of Warwick Halls of Residence[edit]

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

Non notable subject matter with WP:BEFORE demonstrating no independent reliable sourcing. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater@ 15:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no 3rd party sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 19:51, 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) 20:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

AfDs for this article:

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

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

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 20 lines of successions to defunct thrones that have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20). TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 15:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, by now a fictional monarchy. —Kusma (t·c) 18:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep topic of major significance up to 1918, even if it’s of less significance in 2020. This Article should inform about who was eligible to become king, or today the Head is the House of Württemberg. Reliable Sources exist for members of the family which is still prominent in Germany even though no longer reigning. - dwc lr (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is currently no such throne, and hence there are no rules by which such a line of succession can be compiled. 'What the line of succession would be today had the throne persisted to the present' is just WP:OR / alternative history. Agricolae (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the 8 years since the last AfD, where it was kept on the assurance that reliable sources (in the form of royal genealogy handbooks) existed covering the members and positions of the succession line, no such verifiable sources have been added. It is also not at all evident that such publications are sufficient to demonstrate encyclopedic notability: the criteria for inclusion in, e.g., the GHdA are the family's membership in a particular aristocratic association and their submission of primary materials verifying and/or updating their entry to the German Nobility Law Committee/German aristocratic archives, which oversees the Handbuch. These books are therefore only useful for confirming a family structure exists, not that it is itself a notable topic discussed by independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons stated above. This is very WP:OR and stuff invented and assumed rather than being compiled from fact. doktorb _words^deeds 07:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How can one be in line of succession for a throne, that no longer exists? GoodDay (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
REname to Dukes of Württemberg (currently a redirect to Duchy of Württemberg. It appears that the descendants of the last king still use the title Duke. There is no reason why we should not have an article on the holders of the title, just as we do on every British and Irish peerage. The Duchy article does not list the Dukes, even before they had higher titles, which means there is ample scope for repurposing the present article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:50, 16 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) 14:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds for the Supermarket[edit]

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

Blatant WP:HOAX even if unintentional, article for a YouTube playlist of library music which claims to be a promotional cassette release. The first track is from a 1980 UK library record, Sunny Jim by Take Six Discogs, cover art is clearly a computer created image and not a scanned cassette artwork. No references to an actual physical release by Muzak is made by the article. RoseCherry64 (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it doesn't exist. The nominator's assessment is convincing. Someone put together a YouTube playlist of old dreck that might have been played in supermarkets in the 1970s, and it attracted enough commentary for incredulous saps to think it was an actual album. (And if you know anything about recording history, 61:22 is an unlikely length for a cassette or vinyl release from 1975.) Most of the listed sources are not about any album of this title, but instead discuss 1970s supermarket music at the high level. Some mention Muzak, others don't, and one (#3) spells their name wrong. One source (#5) mentions the so-called album by name, but it was written by a blogger who fell for the ruse just like the creator of this WP article did. All other found sources are social media and streaming links created by people who think this album exists. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely WP:HOAX. In fact, this should be speedy deleted per WP:G3. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't seem to be created with malicious intent/to vandalize, so I wasn't sure if speedy delete was appropriate. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that it was a hoax back on YouTube and lots of people fell for it, including the person who turned it into an article here. No need for "hoax" procedures here, but "doesn't exist" procedures are in order! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:28, 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. Sandstein 18:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheder sheini[edit]

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

The article has no sourcesfor what is an obscure concept, and most people within the Chabad sect would not know what this was. Fails with notability as well as lack of sources Playlet (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator, and in line with my support of the deletion proposal for the synonymous Chabadnitze. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:GNG. Yoninah (talk) 17:58, 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 delete. czar 19:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YouthQuake[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A non notable local event, with WP:BEFORE showing no evidence of wider notability outside of local area. No evidence of substantial, independent, reliable sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an event lacking the coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 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) 14:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrient testing[edit]

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

Current sourcing is non-WP:MEDRS-compliant, consisting primarily of naturopathy practitioners. Searches did not return sufficient reliable-source coverage to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 12:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 12:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note: I've removed copyvio from four different sources from the page, which was already short (five sentences), so there's not much left there now; if it's to be kept it will need to be completely rewritten. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not really a notable concept as such. Not seeing any sources call micronutrient testing "nutrient testing", so I don't think we can salvage this article. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of course there are lab tests for nutrients, but "nutrient testing" is not really a coherent concept as the indications for the tests and the methods used vary widely. This article seems to be referring to some sort of extensive panel ordered by naturopaths but I am unable to find any WP:MEDRS sources that discuss this (or even WP:RS sources). The sourcing is incredibly poor. Spicy (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 19:53, 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 keep. NAUTHOR has been sufficiently demonstrated. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Lynn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG - none of the references I have reviewed meet the standard for WP:SIGCOV. Nothing at WP:AUTHOR seems to apply. To acknowledge the points made in the previous nomination which closed as "no consensus" - he may be a writer for several news outlets, and have some minor quotations in other publications, but these facts do not convey notability. Paradox society 08:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 08:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 08:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator - it is worth noting that the original author of the article is a user who goes by the same name: User:Matthew Lynn, making this an apparent WP:AUTOBIO. Paradox society 09:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per reasons discussed in the nomination. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments 1. The first AfD closed under two weeks ago. I thought there had to be more time between nominations. Or am I missing something?

2. I'm seeing a number of hits in Gale Literature that I can sort through and try to incorporate. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I searched around for a definitive guideline on renominations in the case of "no consensus" and was unable to find anything official. If I missed something I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. Paradox society 19:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE links to this essay which says 2 months, but as it is an essay only linked to policy, I am unsure as to whether it is policy. It is very soon to renominate. I'm not asking you to withdraw, and I will see what I can add to it to address the nomination concerns. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did come across this essay and given that it didn't appear to be policy and did not have a link to a formal guideline I opted to be WP:BOLD and renominate with a clearer explanation. I do recognize it is a "quick" renomination, and I do generally agree with the points in that essay as they relate to specific guidelines for "keep" or "delete" closures but I am of the opinion that discussions should be left open/relisted until a consensus can be reached. I should also note that this article is in the oldest part of theWikiProject Notability backlog which is 11 years long - I did first attempt to determine if any sources existed to prove notability so that it could just be untagged, but was not successful, thus the AfD. All this being said, I do hope you are successful in improving the article! Paradox society 00:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough to demonstrate notability as a writer. I believe in the case of closing as "no consensus" there is no actual time limit to reopening the discussion, since in fact it was basically a close saying we have not made any decision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made amendments at the last nom, and voted keep based on wp:author 1. He is widely cited by many other authors on matters of financial reporting. I have no disagreement at all that it has been renom as the original nom was closed with one keep and one delete, and not enough discussion. I hope it is better this time round. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now; may update with a strike later. Meets WP:NAUTHOR #3 with his collective body of work. "Multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" exist. I added some reviews and made some other adjustments to the article. Hope to add more later. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment isn't Kirkus accepted as being enough for reviews? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*delete no sinificant coverage. Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC) you already voted above[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources have been added so some extra comment required
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did Boleyn accidentally vote twice? Want to choose one to strike? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would the previous delete voters please weigh in on the coverage in The Bookseller, Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, CHOICE, etc. as applies to WP:AUTHOR? I'm surprised it got through 2 AfDs without anyone adding the Kirkus and Publishers Reviews which, for me, appear in the first few results of searching the name + reviews. Then again, maybe most were not familiar enough to know what they are. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're enough, and they have been in other AfDs, many times. I consider Publishers Weekly, especially, to be more tied to industry, in the way that Billboard and Variety are tied to theirs, but they're all RS. It's always "nice" to find something beyond Kirkus and Publishers Weekly... Caro7200 (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Besides the reviews mentioned so far, the article also cites reviews of his non-fiction books in Management Today, Foreign Affairs and CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. I believe this helps to establish notability per WP:NAUTHOR. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP He is seen as an expert in his field by the number of different major news sources that let him publish articles about finance. Google news search "Matthew Lynn" "finance". His books get enough reviews to have their own articles, they proven notable, and writing notable books is how you determine if an author is notable. Also the last AFD just closed. The nominator contacted all three who participated in it, knowing two of them had said delete. Dream Focus 21:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did make an article for one of his books yesterday, just a stub to get things started. The Month of the Leopard. Dream Focus 19:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does Boleyn want to revote now Kirkus found? On previous afd for Charles Borden he withdrew his nom because Kirkus Reviews were found? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I put no great trust in reviews by Kirkus or LJ or Bookseller, but a review in Choice means he has also written a serious academic book. of significance. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against redirection. czar 04:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Panzer[edit]

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

One secondary source provided, but no others found. fails W:GNG Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added some more to the article, and it now has five secondary sources listed below. I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- American Comic Book Chronicles: The 1970s by Jason Sacks and Keith Dallas (TwoMorrows Publishing, 2004)
- "Phil Jimenez: From Titans Fan to Titans Pro" in Titans Companion by Glen Cadigan (TwoMorrows Publishing, 2004)
- "Wonder Woman Against the Nazis: Gendering Villainy in DC Comics" by Ruth McClelland-Nugent, in Monsters in the Mirror: Representations of Nazism in Post-war Popular Culture (Praeger, 2010)
- The Encyclopedia of Supervillains by Jeff Rovin (Facts on File, 1987)
- The Essential Wonder Woman Encyclopedia by Phil Jimenez and John Wells (Del Rey, 2010)
Delete. I don't see anything that goes beyond a plot summary and/or lists of 'this character debuted in x, and also appeared in y and z comics'. Nothing about significance or such. Fails WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources with real-world context to pass the WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT requirements. There is a list of wonder woman enemies and that would be an acceptable redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Piotrus. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article lacks real world context. There is currently nothing signifying potential improvement to satisfy WP:N. TTN (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 19:54, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World of Boxing[edit]

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

This is a very poor an unencyclopedic article. It is very promotional. Poor refs -- all are Russian. And why does the table in the article contain cryllic?? WP:TNT. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't analyze the sources but since the article is just two lists it appears there is no wp:notability-suitable coverage. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 09:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very poorly constructed article but on a notable company who are one of the leaders of global boxing. Requires significant improvement but the material is there. HuntGroup (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @HuntGroup:, any proof for "one of the leaders of global boxing"? Forbes Russia calls it "largest [boxing] promotion company in Russia, almost monopoly", but also it is written as if World of Boxing is rather second-rate worldwide, without explicitly saying it. Wikisaurus (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator says "Poor refs -- all are Russian"; this is explicitly counter to WP:GNG, which says that sources do not have to be in English. I don't speak Russian either, but I used Google Translate, and the coverage appears to be significant. The first reference is for an article titled "World of Boxing under arrest: the tax service has blocked the accounts of the promotion company" from Sovsport.ru, the second is "Money in the ring: Is it possible to earn money in boxing in Russia" focuses on the World of Boxing founder from RBC.ru. Personally, I'm not familiar with those sources and I don't know if they're reliable, but neither the nominator or the delete voters have bothered to explain why we shouldn't consider them acceptable sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Non English sources are allowed so we do need source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above sources are reputable: Sovetsky Sport and RBK Group. Namerst (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain from voting. There are Forbes Russia (a paragraph about World of Boxing) and RBK (whole article; it's RBK Group), it's more or less everything for WP:ORG, the rest is either news about fights organized by World of Boxing or news about corruption scandals, and both type do not give notability by WP:INHERITORG. But the Forbes Russian calls it "largest [boxing] promotion company in Russia, almost monopoly", if it is any valuable. Wikisaurus (talk) 14:01, 16 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. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anacor[edit]

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

I did a PROD for this back in February due to the companies apparent lack of notability that was removed, because it might be notable since it was sold a lot of money. Nothing about the lack of notability has changed since then though. All of the sources in the article are either primary or extremely trivial and I can't find any that aren't. As an alternative to deletion it could potentially be merged to the company that bought it out Pfizer, but there would still have to be good secondary sources to back up whatever is merged. Adamant1 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep This nomination is incorrect because A 5.2 Billion dollar company that developed two FDA drugs is notable. Pfizer is a massive pharmaceutical company, Anacor is relatively small peanuts for pfizer, it would be weird to have an extensive discussion on that article. The FDA is not a primary source, an FDA press release notifying of the release of a new drug is highly significant i.e. their products are highly notable. Tavaborole is a particularly notable compound as it has a novel mechanism of action. In addition to the coverage you could find by typing Anacor FDA into google, a quick search of the academic literature will reveal many publications. PainProf (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either show me a policy that says "A 5.2 Billion dollar company that developed two FDA drugs is notable" or retract your vote. 5.2 billion is actually pretty pretty average in the world of pharmaceutical companies because it takes a lot of money to make drugs. Plus, Pharmaceutical companies get FDA approval for the drugs they develop. That's just how it works and there's nothing notable about it. Also, there's already articles about the drugs they developed. Which should be good enough. They aren't automatically notability just because they developed a few medications or have an about average net worth for the industry. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right.... but a pharmaceutical company that has actually made it to market is rare. The vast majority fail epically. Developing an FDA drug is a highly notable product, millions will take this drug, its fine to have an article about the company that made it. There are many promo articles on Wikipedia, which is a problem but any drug company that actually manages to bring an approved pharmaceutical drug to market is notable. ~~This is a bad nom, you can just withdraw it.~~

. I'll take you argument a step further, Wayne Rooney gets coverage because he's a footballer, football is what he does, he can't be notable because he plays for England, a middling team who never won a world cup when he played for them. PainProf (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment that could be seen as not assuming good faith. PainProf (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Original PROD reason "Nothing notable about the company. Except that it got bought out, but none of its products are notable and its not even clear what their products actually are. Seems more like an advert then anything." By the way you need to put a policy based reason for deletion, it is fairly clear why the PROD got rejected. PainProf (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My original PROD reason has nothing to do with the AfD or is in any way related to the reasons I gave for the AfD nomination. Nice try deflecting from the fact that you don't have a policy to back up your crap about it automatically being notable because it's worth 5 billion dollars though. I'm not retracting the nomination based on your clearly faulty reasoning. Either show me a guideline where 5 billion dollar companies are automatically notable, provide some in-depth non-trivial secondary sources about this, or go kick rocks. You already voted and made your opinion about it pretty clear. Both of which wre more then enough. Harassing me about the nomination and trying to turn it into some garbage WP:OSE argument isn't constructive. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Significant coverage defined by Wikipedia is:

A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger,

A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization,

A report by a consumer watchdog organization on the safety of a specific product

1) Variously great or bad merger^[1]^[2]

2) Products have heaps of scholarly articles e.g. ^[3]^[4]

3) Or in notable industry blogs. The FDA determination of drug safety... PainProf (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ Williams, Sean (2016-05-24). "Pfizer's Buyout of Anacor Pharmaceuticals for $5.2 Billion Is a Bad Move -- Here's Why". The Motley Fool. Retrieved 2020-07-23.
^ Swanson, Cheryl (2016-08-18). "Why Pfizer's Acquisition of Anacor Is a Great Fit". The Motley Fool. Retrieved 2020-07-23.
^ Poulakos, Mara; Grace, Yasmin; Machin, Jade D.; Dorval, Erin (April 2017). "Efinaconazole and Tavaborole". Journal of Pharmacy Practice. 30 (2): 245–255. doi:10.1177/0897190016630904. ISSN 1531-1937. PMID 26873506.
^ March, Derek Lowe 5; 2012 (2012-03-05). "Trouble With a Boron-Containing Drug Candidate". In the Pipeline. Retrieved 2020-07-23. ((cite web)): |last2= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Uumm, Motley Fool isn't a reliable source because it's an opinion blog and the forth one isn't even about the company. Good job finding one good source though? Maybe? Even if you failed at it (mostly), trying to find sources is at least better then the other stuff. Even bad footwork is better then no footwork. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four, 1) Science Translational Medicine's (a highly respected academic journal) Blog is a highly reliable industry blog on pharmaceutical companies and the article on Boron therapeutics gives in depth coverage over the notable strategy of this company in Boron therapeutics (source 4), A review article based off many primary research articles is a highly reliable indication that the products the company produces are notable, where is your evidence the Motley fool is not reliable, it is neither deprecated nor listed as an unreliable source, it has journalists and engages in fact checking, all authors fill a COI disclosure. An opinion source about a company's merger shows that it is controversial. PainProf (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nominator's argument appears to be that a pharmaceutical company is not notable if it produces drugs and makes money, and therefore any coverage it gets is routine and trivial. This is not a coherent argument. As PainProf has demonstrated, Anacor and its products have significant coverage and passes GNG. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird that you would claim that about me since I specifically told PainProf to find non-routine sources about it and I even said one of the sources he come up with was non-trivial. That seems to just be the disingenuous way both of you are doing this though. Then you both go off about my "bad attitude." As if there isn't a reason I have one, like this and your crap in the other AfD. Or like your not the ones being disruptive with how your both acting and the arguing on your sides. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this conversation may be becoming uncivil. Im striking an earlier comment that could have been phrased better. I encourage all editors to strike any profanities or comments directed at other editors as opposed to sources. PainProf (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to ~~Pfizer~~ either Boron#Pharmaceutical_and_biological_applications or Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor (see below). Basic due diligence shows Anacor dead as a doorknocker since 2016/2017. It hasn't been traded on NASDAQ, as the article still claims, for three years. The website www.anacor.com redirects without comment to its parent's splash page. Pfizer's 2019 Financial Report makes only one reference to Anacor as a wholly-owned subsidiary, an internal business unit which does not report separate financial results, or develop its own drugs, or issue press releases, or even maintain a separate web presence. The company has been eaten and digested. "Keep" is not a sensible option. By the way, the drug company Medivation was also eaten and digested by Pfizer, so similar cleanup is needed there too. --Lockley (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the policy, just because a company merges it doesn't become non-notable, see WP:NTEMP.... It was an independent company and notable at the time prior to merger and because of merger. As a question Why should Pfizer's article have a section on Boron therapeutics, when 1) they sold off the drugs to Sandoz and 2 its not a core part of the business. This company was notable for Boron therapeutics specifically. Just being merged does not change notability. It doesn't matter that this company doesn't exist anymore. They are notable in the history of boron therapeutics as a major entity. Pfizer's article is also already 100k bytes and quite long, how would you propose to integrate this company which wasn't part of Pfizer when it was notable. PainProf (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On this basis we should also delete Beecham Group, Sigma-Aldrich etc. These companies all merged into larger companies. Or what about companies broken up for pieces, sold to a bank, or defunct? PainProf (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like Pfizer needs to be cut down anyway and adding this to it won't affect that any. Except for maybe pushing someone to actually do it. I don't think it being long should reflect on or effect what the best option for this article is anyway though. Plus, I don't think the article is or will be that long after whatever is badly sourced or not relevant is cut out of it anyway. For instance the first section is all about the chemical Boron and has absolutely nothing to do with the company. Whereas the second section is on drugs that already have their own articles and there isn't a need to talk about them in that much detail. So, the only thing that's actually relevant and worth merging is probably the lead. Which is extremely short. At least that's my analysis. Also, stop with the WP:OSE arguments already. Either stick to sound reasoning and guidelines or don't comment. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @PainProf:. After reflection I think you have a point. My argument didn't address notability. I was so eager to point out that the patient whose health was under discussion had been deceased for awhile now, and so quick to whistle for an orderly, that I didn't address the notability issue head-on, and I should have. Anacor (2002-2016) may have been notable.

You've argued on the grounds of the dollar amount of the merger, the rarity of actual delivery of drugs through FDA approval, and the novelty of Tavaborole being Boron-based. Those two opposing Motley Fool articles seem likely to contain anything notable about Anacor and/or its merger aimed at a layman's understanding. The anti-merger piece says Pfizer was heavy with cash and hot for any partners, that they overpaid for Anacor's two producing assets, the toenail fungus treatment Kerydin (Tavaborole) and the eczema treatment crisaborole, that these only added to Pfizer's existing "inflammation and immunology portfolio", and they were going to get competitive pressure in that market segment anyway. The pro-merger piece says Pfizer overpaid but Anacor was working with Boron as "a new platform for drug design". Boron-based drugs have a wonky reputation but great potential, maybe, even in oncology. Supposedly Anacor's head made a tactical decision to develop topical anti-inflammatory products first, for money reasons (quicker approval times, faster payoff), while placing a longer R&D bet on other Boron-based PDE4 inhibitors, which have all kinds of applications. Meanwhile Pfizer had deep pockets that could set Anacor's researchers free, and a special interest in oncology. So, merger, great idea.

Your first argument, the big money argument, not a great argument. Look at the Pfizer page, at the long list of its corporate acquisitions, you'll see Anacor fits into a pattern, and moneywise simply wasn't a huge deal. Likewise for your second argument, it looks like the FDA approves about 40 drugs a year, with 59 approvals in 2018. Each of the associated companies wouldn't seem automatically notable to me. But the third argument, the boron thing, that's actually worth talking about. As you've pointed out there's been a fair amount of academic attention to that "new platform for drug design." I agree that story deserves encyclopedic attention. But not here, not in an article about a dead company. And anyway Anacor was not the only company with a boron-based drug on the market. Pharmaceutical boron chemistry didn't belong to them and doesn't belong to Pfizer (despite them holding a bunch of patents now). All that story belongs at Boron#Pharmaceutical_and_biological_applications, or at Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor.

Obviously I can't help that the Sigma-Aldrich page is so screwed up that the title and bolded name don't match, and the logo doesn't match either one. Obviously I don't care about the length of the Pfizer page right now, and you shouldn't either. One problem at a time. --Lockley (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed reply. re the parents that's certainly true, Sandoz distributes it now. But I'm sure you would agree as a matter of record they were developed by Anacor rather than Sandoz or Pfizer. The criticism of boron therapeutics is actually of a compound from this company co-developed with GSK. Your point made me realise the article focuses on only the successful compounds but there were a number of flops too e.g. the one on that page. For FDA approval, it might be trivial if these were me-too drugs but since they actually have a novel mechanism of action vs other drugs they are a far rarer endeavour. Moreover they are relatively small to have two drugs approved. And actually normally a corporation with the capacity to make drugs at that level will meet GNG even if it is a me-too drug. I'm not sure I agree with the analysis from the motley fool since Pfizer I think wanted the drugs since they didn't get Allegran, Pfizer itself has little interest in R+D and in recent years has become more purchaser than basic developer of drugs. Either way this comment essentially describes a notable company. I don't think it's possible or desirable to include all the encyclopedic information of Pfizer's acquisitions in Pfizer's article. Long articles are a consideration as they are harder to navigate particularly on mobile browsers, a very common way to access Wikipedia WP:sizerule. I would suggest a few lines at Pfizer with a link remains the best way. Similarly reliable sources seem to find it significant i.e. In the pipeline is a good industry blog. As another note we should be able to find a great deal more about the founding of this company. In this case it looks like the founders indeed revolutionised boron therapeutics started a company that actually made it. I.e. they are described as a first mover in the field.^[1] PainProf (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Bortezomib came to the U.S. market in 2003, making the developer Myogenics the "first mover" in the field of therapeutic boron chemistry. Myogenics is another defunct company. To me this is further proof that any encyclopedic discussion of Anacor's sole claim to fame, its role the history & potential of boron-based drugs, would belong in Boron or in Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, not here. Best. --Lockley (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep.Passes GNG but might need additional sourcesGeorgiamarlins (talk) 18:46, 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) 20:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There may be some notability but there does not seem to be sufficient secondary sources at the moment. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 15:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable 5.2 Billion dollar company: developed two FDA drugs is notable. The article passes our notability guidelines, and can be sourced further. Wm335td (talk) 01:44, 21 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. Closing in line with several precedents. The article Serbian names covers the topic well enough. Tone 13:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serbian given names[edit]

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

The article has stood for 2 years without having its notability challenged. It is essentially an indiscriminate directory-style list of Serbian given names and I'm guessing its intention is to be an exhaustive list of every given name in Serbia. I feel it fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG but I'm open to being proved wrong. Spiderone 20:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous consensus to delete:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and per WP:CLN as complement to Category:Serbian given names, which includes 395 articles. @Spiderone:, I'd hold off on any more such nominations if I were you until the pending ones are resolved, because it may save some time. postdlf (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Serbian names is okay; the exhaustive directory of names is not. It also has problematic inclusion criteria. Is it just for names with their origin in the Serbian language or just any names that are used in Serbia? If it is the latter, then there are potentially infinite possibilities. If it is the former, then names like Anita, Georgina and Lara and several others should be removed for a start. Spiderone 20:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is best summarised in this section of policy, which states "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them, but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper." This article violates that because it is an indiscriminate list of every Serbian given name and is largely unverifiable. Spiderone 20:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CLN applies when the list can provide something beyond mere alphabetized links. This article does not, and should not be kept unless demonstrated to provide something better than being a context-free directory. Information such as prevalence can also go at Serbian_names#Given_names. Reywas92^Talk 02:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: legit list per WP:CLN, WP:NOTDUP states: "building a rudimentary list of links is a useful step in improving a list. Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks" and WP:AOAL lays out potential advantages. // Timothy :: talk 14:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And per appropriate topics for lists, we have "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example, a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value." and "Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." This article covers a topic that is too large, unverifiable and, most importantly, has no place in an encyclopaedia. For example, if a couple in Serbia decide to name their new born son 'Logan' would that mean that 'Logan' needs to be added to this list? Ridiculous list that can never achieve its purpose. Spiderone 14:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As Timothy. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oleryhlolsson:@Postdlf:@TimothyBlue: I have taken the liberty to dig out as many previous AfDs on this topic as possible. Please can I ask you to confirm that you wish to go against previously established consensus here? It is quite clear that the reasons to delete those previous articles (i.e. WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO) still apply here. Spiderone 07:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (changed vote): I was reading this discussion Spiderone posted and the mention of "List of Jewish names" startled me. I actually can't believe it didn't occur to me immediately what various lists of names that usually to belong to a particular group have been used for historically. This may not have occured to others as well. I know this was absolutely not in anyway the intention with these Wikipedia lists, but good intentions can be used by those with other than good intentions. This is enough for me to switch to Delete. I doubt there is a policy or guideline to directly support this reasoning, but per WP:IGNORE I think Delete is the best way to improve the encyclopedia. // Timothy :: talk 07:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Adds absolutely nothing over and above Category:Serbian given names (other than sundry redlinks). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "Serbian given names" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. Lawson, Edwin D.; Shell, Richard F., eds. (1962-01-30). "Serbo-Croatian Personal Names". The Onomastic Treasure of the CIA. Central Intelligence Agency. doi:10.13140/2.1.1735.5042.
  The book notes: "Given names: Approx. 175 listed indicating gender, diminutives, variants and, in some cases, whether the name is Muslim or Serbian. Some names have English meaning."
2. "What's in a Se [text is illegible] Name?". Serb World. Neven Publishing Corporation. 1988. Retrieved 2020-08-10.
  The article notes: "Serbs are given the names of their relatives or a name the family particularly likes, depending on the circumstances. Some of the more common Serbian first names are explained here."
The list is not indiscriminate.
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says Wikipedia articles should not be: "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates". This article is none of these, so it is not indiscriminate.

The list might never be complete, which is fine.
It is fine for the list never to be complete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists:
Because of Wikipedia's role as an almanac and a gazetteer as well as an encyclopedia, it contains a large number of lists. Some lists, such as the list of U.S. state birds, are typically complete and unlikely to change for a long time. Some lists, however, cannot be considered complete, or even representative of the class of items being listed; such lists should be immediately preceded by the ((Expand list)) template, or one of the topic-specific variations that can be found at Category:Hatnote templates for lists. Other lists, such as List of numbers, may never be fully complete, or may require constant updates to remain current – these are known as "dynamic lists", and should be preceded by the ((Dynamic list)) template.

General notability guideline
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cunard - I'm not suggesting that Serbian given names are not a notable topic and, indeed, some of those references that you have found could be used in the article Serbian names; I am simply arguing that an exhaustive list of every single given name possessed by a Serb is unencyclopaedic and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Spiderone 09:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTCATALOG this article is essentially a repository of contextless data from a source or two, thus it's essentially a "mirror" of phone book like contents. Graywalls (talk) 00:40, 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 13:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zaleb Brown[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and has been declined multiple times at AFC. References are useless at verifying any notability. Re-draftification is likely to fail because the editor appears impervious to advice. Fiddle Faddle 10:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 10:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability whatsoever. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NMUSIC completely. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON, but at the moment the subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: per the findings below, I would advocate salting this title as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page on wikipedia I don't see anything amiss with this page also. Everything has been checked and is looking genuine. I likewise made some minor alters on the wording and incorrect spelling on this page. This craftsman is unquestionably perceived on Facebook and Instagram as an open figure and a performer. The press articles are genuine also. The particularly the Voyage Houston, Digital Journal and Market watch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josethewonderful (talk • contribs) 00:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC) - striking !vote of indeffed sockpuppet Fiddle Faddle 06:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Josethewonderful has been indefinitely blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet, per this investigation. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some further info: parallel drafts of this article exist in the histories of Draft:Zaleb Brown, Draft:Zaleb Brown (2), Draft:Zaleb Brown (3), Draft:Zaleb Brown (4), and Draft:Zaleb Brown (5). Yes, really. All of them were created by this sockfarm. Those can all be deleted under WP:G8 when this AfD is closed (I redirected all of them to this page, but the response was seemingly always to just make another draft and/or account), and I would also highly recommend salting as well. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:NMUSIC; sourcing not at all good. Eagleash (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom/per above. Fails notability + sources are trash. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:33, 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 13:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kandmool[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and based tangentially on a single source PenulisHantu (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Indian cuisine or Delete. // Timothy :: talk 06:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The text is a personal essay about food likes and dislikes, while the references are random and unreliable. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cleaned up the article and added some citations. I don't think it's an unsourced essay anymore. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

09:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even after cleanup, this does not demonstrate notability under the GNG and no other SNG applies. The only two potential RS post-cleanup don't even agree on what plants kandmool is actually the root of and one is just a list of regional food names with species identifications lacking context or detail. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:53, 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 2011 Mid Suffolk District Council election. T. Canens (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suffolk Together[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. This article does not prove notability. The party appear to have had two individual election results in 2011, though this has not been followed by anything which would fit within GNG and other relevant policies. doktorb _words^deeds 08:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 08:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable political party. --RaviC (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2011 Mid Suffolk District Council election per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:ATD. Definitely non-notable politicians or political organizations that have contested one election are usually redirected to the election contest articles. That appears to be the correct thing to do here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 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 delete. Tone 13:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PPPILA[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. This article has no citations at all, and there are minimal Google searches for the party which prove any notable achievements prior to, or during, election campaigns. Fails GNG and other relevant policies. Usefulness is not a reason to retain. doktorb _words^deeds 08:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 08:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has no sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable political party per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Seagull123 Φ 20:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:48, 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. T. Canens (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

E Gazakoff[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:NACTOR. No way passes the WP:GNG. Recreated after speedy deletion. Zoodino (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create, 2020-04 ✗ A7

Delete a Google search returns with soundcloud, Amazon, Pinterest and other similar sites. No indication of notability. Fails to satisfy general notability criteria, particularly WP:NMUSIC and WP:NACTOR per nom. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability indeed. Google search results are the usual junk sites like Facebook, Youtube, SoundCloud, Pinterest, Amazon, Behance, Twitter and Apple Music. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:05, 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 Coach (ice hockey). (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 20:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youth ice hockey coach[edit]

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

Nothing of any use not already covered in Coach (ice hockey). ~~I also wonder if there's anything there that isn't/couldn't be covered in Coach (sport)~~. On second thought, there's nothing much there [in Coach (ice hockey)] right now, but it has potential for specific "ice hockey"ness. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Coach (ice hockey) and trim excessive detail.Flibirigit (talk) 15:59, 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. There is substantial evidence regarding UPE impacting this deletion discussion. Therefore when weighing consensus I have only considered the arguments of users who have shown an interest in multiple topics (which includes this article's creator). Among these editors there is clear consensus that this person does not meet any of our notability guidelines and that there is a consensus to delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Wisham[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)

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE:WP:BASIC. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed nothing that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 07:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 10:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is an individual from the Maldives. Not from Moldova. (Existance Leesaaisath) —Preceding undated comment added 08:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete considering how hard it is to actually get articles on every person who has headed a national level ministry, all of whom are by default notable, I see no reason to create an article on some random advisor to some ministry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe subject is an individual from the Maldives. Not from Moldova. Timothy Thanks for correcting it.

1. Link with local Language name in google. You can find enough links as per guidelines.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&biw=1366&bih=664&ei=8KgxX9btB-2tytMPx82e-Ac&q=%DE%91%DE%83.%DE%89%DE%AA%DE%80%DE%A6%DE%87%DE%B0%DE%89%DE%A6%DE%8B%DE%AA+%DE%88%DE%A8%DE%9D%DE%A7%DE%89%DE%B0&oq=%DE%91%DE%83.%DE%89%DE%AA%DE%80%DE%A6%DE%87%DE%B0%DE%89%DE%A6%DE%8B%DE%AA+%DE%88%DE%A8%DE%9D%DE%A7%DE%89%DE%B0&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQA1DzbFjzbGCCcmgAcAB4AIABpwKIAbIEkgEDMi0ymAEAoAECoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpesABAQ&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjWpaiAuJHrAhXtlnIEHcemB38Q4dUDCAs&uact=5

2. Link in goole English search. You can find enough links as per guidelines.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dr+mohamed+wisham&client=firefox-b-d&ei=XqkxX5fyPK6uytMPwaG92A4&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiXmZe1uJHrAhUul3IEHcFQD-s4ChDy0wN6BAgLECs&biw=1366&bih=664

Everyone, feel free to insert your constructive thoughts after research, This was the first among the researches I have done. I hope this is a good contribution to Wikipedia. bless you all. Existance Leesaaisath — Note to closing admin: Leesaaisath (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Keep as per sources I just cited. I can see that the person is featured in almost all major local news in the Maldives. Sun.mv, Mihaaru.com, raajje.mv, psmnews.mv and avas.mv. plus in some regional news papers. Meets WP:GNG. 42.106.218.40 (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC) — 42.106.218.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. No reasonable substantive argument made for deletion The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The news sources the subject is cited are prominent news sources in Maldives from what I see. I see that from the old news paper Haveeru Online, more than 2 articles on the subject. This one covers the subject per WP:GNG possibly. Msgelhorn (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Msgelhorn (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. ~~GSS should I not vote? I put vote in three pages. No one pays me here in wikipedia. Please tell me if I have done any mistake. Can I edit now? Msgelhorn (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete A non-notable individual has never been elected to office so fails WP:NPOL, no notable work done by him in the field of medicine or journalism. All in all fails WP:GNG and does not warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 12:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undisclosed paid-for spam with no significant coverage in third party reliable sources and none of the current sources meet GNG. GSS ^💬 12:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ignoring the obvious SPAs and paid for votes here, this doesn't hold up. It's nothing but paid for spam without a lick of meaningful in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Dear All, Please refrain from noting my actions as being paid. It is not nor I will be part of it. I have asked to look to local papers and give your genuine comment. I am very discouraged at the moment. I would not be participating in any of such things, Since I was aiming to be a long standing contributor since I am journalsit. I will now ease to use wikipedia, since this does not look good for my ambitions here. I was trying to help and created many articles from maldives. Thank you (Existance Leesaaisath 12:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Comment : I have also previously, when I found it difficult to get these local websites to be marked as sources, I have stated in the wikiproject Maldives. I would like the admins and sernior editors to look into this in future. If these are to be the end product of the work, it will hard to populate wikipedia maldives. (Existance Leesaaisath 12:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Draftify based on the comments above, I'd like to change my vote to Draftify. The creator is a new editor and still learning and sending this to drafts will give them an opportunity to work on it with a mentor (I've suggested this to them). There may very well be local language Maldivian sources that show notability that we are unaware of. We lack editors from this part of the world and with these language skills and it would be a plus for the encyclopedia if this new editor could be retained and improved by mentoring. Many people at AfD have wished they could ask for input from someone that speaks an uncommon language and here we may have this kind of resource. Nothing is hurt by sending this to Draft, while something could well be gained. Thanks for your consideration. // Timothy :: talk 14:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To all who contributed here, Thank you. It shows me the level of dedication and rules we have here, its great to know that. I have had admins and users giving me strength here, Thank you. Since we have all of us, and important people's attention, I want this piece of contribution here to help us all to make Wikipedia better.

About this subject, I will start with an example. This Link https://archive.mv/dv/articles/j5mnE Please have a thorough look at it. Many may not understand but if looked clearly will see; You can note A. The subject's name in local language in many recurrences. B. Note that it was long time back. C. Stated in Haveeru_Daily, which was then No.1 In Maldives. D. If you can read you will know its by the Office of the President who sanctioned the subject work, if someone writes by their own on such level, it will be criminal.

This is one sample I took from google search. From what I have read as GNG rules, it fits from one article itself.

Since I was asked about elected posts, I cannot in English verify much, but here is a try. For ex: This subject was elected to the highest body of doctors in Maldives 2014 http://mma.org.mv/. Please have a search on (January 2014 archive) and the Care_Society board, which is largest and oldest NGO in Maldives and elected by a general assembly open to public.

and the subject's local name (as written in article in dhivehi), search in google, it shows many of the secondary sources by major news sources about the subject's stand and advice to medical issues, emergencies and healthcare reform work in different timelines.(There is a lot to write to explain every link, So I will stop it here for users to look into them by themselves).

The discussion about this subject in my interest; is not for the person individually, but the system we are trying to address. I have many articles about individuals in Maldives I am actually researching and excited about.

Ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyas_Ibrahim

This is one of the most prominent person in "history" of Maldives Politics itself. But I could not find any englsih literature to put up about the person, have only local pieces. And in that page page I have highlighted "Mohamed Waheed"; is the honored Governor of the Southern Region for 3 decades and developed every island in Huvadhu_Atoll. I could not find any literature on him either in English, but just two photos. We need to populate Wikipedia Maldives, we need to build a system to understand this literature of Maldives and its news sources to get this loop fixed.

Many of the Maldivian mainstream media never tries to put up on English publishing as a priority unless there are other international agendas or payments. I understand that too since the country is small and circulation is small, thus overhead is difficult to balance. But it hampers the reality too, self promotion for can effect strict and great sources like Wikipedia.

We need some of us who can read and identify the media sphere of Maldives and Identity the major sources. I have in-depth knowledge of the media and news, But I will need a lot of help from admins and senior editors to bring a consensus, so we can make new additions of Maldives related articles.

About the paid things accusations, I am still not in peace with it, admins and users please investigate and find who is doing this on this article since I dont have any interest in media citations that aren't credible. I have removed sources that aren't Maldivian.

Thank you User:Praxidicae User:Woodlot User:AleatoryPonderings and specially User:TimothyBlue and User:CaptainEek for making me want to write this, those were nice stuff you guys did, it was cool. Existance Leesaaisath 23:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am not a wiki editor, but could not resist saying something after seeing this on this persons page. The news papers I see are mostly main maldives papers. I know Dhivehi language and I can confirm that the person is portrayed in the articles this creator is showing in the google link. I dont know the rules here but maybe this information can matter.196.152.75.255 (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC) — 196.152.75.255 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep.. He is a common face in every crisis. A respected and listened person for his actions on cases of abuse on women and children. It's maldives news and it's him referred in them. Write and memorialize men & women like this than the dirty politicians who abused ministry female staff and used the state money in COVID19. I am sure many child & women abusers will hate him. You do not see much news on people like this because many Maldivian editors abuse women. https://raajje.mv/84245 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waqar88n (talk • contribs) 00:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC) — Waqar88n (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note to closing admin: Please note that there is a case of undisclosed paid editing and paid votes so, please contact one of OTRS agents for more information. GSS ^💬 04:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability guidelines for politicians and the GNG guidelines. I don't think drafting would be worth it, because it will likely just be AfDed again, if it even passes AfC, and rightly so IMO. Hopefully it doesn't discourage the person who created it from writing other articles on more notable subjects though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Thank you for your thoughts. Again, I wonder why again and again I have been labelled as paid to or I pay people, it is SAD. I Dont know why people are doing this and that. Anyone who wants to comment (Positive or negative) against WIKIPEDIA rules up on the PAGE, please refrain from making a mess of this article and username I use here (thats not fair). GSS ^💬 since your on ORTS, rather than putting me in this bad image, can you or others who are admins please find whats going on and block who ever is responsible and refrain labeling me as doing this and that.

Regarding the Guidelines, once again its not about justifying this article , after reading the guidelines in detail apart from WP:GNG, WP:BASIC is met, if you read the articles in the google in local language you will know. Please check in detail. Also I urge the admins to end this fast so no more comments on my authenticity will come. Existance Leesaaisath 11:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My advice is GSS, Tit-for-tat will drive more attention, plus will discourage people to contribute. Best way would be to keep silent and do what you want to do. This is an interesting situation. Who among you can read any of the articles listed? Who can discredit the news sources listed? Guys! can you read a sentence or a paragraph of the links in question? If not than you are not helping Wikipedia or should weigh your opinion. I used to contribute in free time. But I got situations as this and stopped because I lost the drive. I vote keep: Because this is not what Wikipedia is about and I can see the contributor is showing over 10 credible local references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.231.29.107 (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC) — 43.231.29.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: On the contrary, the nom's made several substantive arguments for deletion -- if one disagrees with them, it'd be helpful to state why and based upon what evidence. For my part, sigcov just isn't there. No prejudice against userfying it. Ravenswing 16:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thanks Ravenswing for asking. If you see the newspapers and their levels of prominence in Maldives.

1. Haveeru Daily (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haveeru_Daily is the most prominent published and online source until it was abolished) 2. The most prominent source in Maldives. https://sun.mv/ 3. The second most prominent source in Maldives now, https://mihaaru.com/ 4. The next https://raajje.mv/ 5. And there are others too.

But Have a look at this few news papers by yourself and explain to me if they aren't credible. And about coverage, teach me how to understand it, since its about the subject and if we look in any angle it meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. So, tell me what is the part I dont understand, did you read the Haveeru Daily article? Apart from going deep, that one source justifies this. I think it can help too. Guide me on this please. Thanks Existance Leesaaisath 00:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Those papers here are our country's major news websites. Here is another article related to this person that is not mentioned in sources. https://raajje.mv/77794 posted on 09 May 2020. I can vouch for the authenticity of the newspaper as a major online publication in Maldives. Unless a good explanation is given to delete this page. Good research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.94.93.15 (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     *keep Editors; look to things in positive way. Looking to the smallest of mistakes or rules to destroy things is counter productive anywhere. Cannot see reasons this should be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.195.218.67 (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&ei=C31BX-jSLJaGwPAPk_ul-A4&q=major+maldives+news+papers&oq=major+maldives+news+papers&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIICCEQFhAdEB46BAgAEEc6BggAEAcQHjoECAAQDToICAAQCBAHEB46BggAEAgQHjoGCAAQFhAeOgQIIRAKULdtWIGfAWCwoAFoAXABeACAAV6IAdUJkgECMTWYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6wAEB&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwiohLGy0K_rAhUWAxAIHZN9Ce8Q4dUDCAs&uact=5

Wow!!!! haven't seen this good an argument. From what I see, this dude is there on many of the established sources in Maldives. I am surprised this thread has survived this long given the character of some editors. Nice example of few editors in WIKIPEDIA interpreting the rules as they want and belittle newbies. LOTSS of respect to the Editor who nominated this article, and later changed his stand in the face of more details. The outcome is going to be very useful to understand how the AFD's are treated for small countries. Eager to see the outcome. The votes Dont matter. The reasons and RULES DOES. JAI HIND WIKIPEDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.77.16.66 (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To All: It is clear that some of the people here have previous experience in Wikipedia. Please refrain from expressing personal thoughts here. This is a page created with research and time. I ask all to respect guidelines and not use this page for other purposes. I ask to give constructive comments and under the guidelines of wikipedia. This page is now longer than the article. What if this energy was used to create another article. I have decided to not comment here further and GSS, your a senior editor who contributed here, I respect your work, your edit summery note on 19th August 2020, (→‎Mohamed Wisham: Oh man... another SPA), the wording itself was the final straw for me to confirm that Wikipedia is not for me. Noting this is a paid edit has made it difficult since my real name and namesake is easy to recognize, and people who visited the page would have a negative opinion on me on real world. I have repeatedly asked to check what is happening and I got no reply from. It also keeps a negative tag on the user in the future to be able to be trusted with more responsibilities. Existance Leesaaisath 07:47, 23 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. – Joe (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cherry Street Tavern[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP notability. It's just a bar in Philadelphia. The fact that a few famous people have gone there, doesn't give it notability. Rusf10 (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is indeed a bar in Philadelphia, but it is one that has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, and therefore meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Today I added references to some of that coverage; I'll add more when time permits. Others are, of course, welcome to do the same. TypoBoy (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet WP:AUD, it has not been covered by sources outside of Philadelphia.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD says "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". The 2005 profile by Jennifer Hans in the Courier-Post satisfies that. The Courier-Post is a New Jersey newspaper, so it's a regional, rather than local, source. TypoBoy (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding? or you're just bad at geography. All that separates Philadelphia and New Jersey is a river. Some unknown newspaper a few miles away in Cherry Hill is not a regional source.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Hill, the home of the Courier-Post, is separated from Philadelphia by that river (which is also a state boundary), but also by a number of other municipalities including Pennsauken, Merchantville, Collingswood, Haddon Township, Haddonfield, Audubon, Oaklyn, Gloucester City, and Camden (the 12th-largest city in New Jersey). They're distinct localities within the same region.

Your unfamiliarity with the Courier-Post is of no relevance. It's New Jersey's fifth-largest newspaper, and it's a century and a half old.

You seem to be trying to change Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I'm willing to take part in that discussion, but this isn't the place for it. TypoBoy (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable. The article doesn't do the location justice and should be expanded. --evrik ^(talk) 14:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with sources in the article. Not that it matters, but here is a source from outside Philly [29]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

again same small newspaper with low circulation from a town that is only a few miles away.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:28, 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. Sandstein 08:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed nothing that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 06:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not even clear as to what this thing is. https://ipolitics.ca/2020/04/06/lobby-wrap-youth-homelessness-coalition-steps-up-lobbying-efforts/ is one of the very few Google news results and what it seems to be is a lobbying firm? It fails WP:SIRS, WP:NORG, therefore delete. It was created by a single purpose account which also went on to insert name drop this org in several different places. Graywalls (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:45, 16 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. The nomination is withdrawn per discussion consensus. (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 20:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Composites Technology Research Malaysia[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed nothing that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 06:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMHO its better to keep and not to delete this page. The source is reliable and not just depends on a single source. Laskar kern (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I vote for this page to keep, the sources I think reliable and multiple enough. As example : the source from Shepard Media and Flight Global. We all as a military watcher know this both source uses as reference for globally military page and internationally. And not to mentioned the source from the official websites of this company (CTRM). As you can see there was two source from official websites of this company where the first from its parent company (DefTech) and the other one from this company itself as subsidiary (CTRM). There also source from The Edge Market which is very reliable for companies and business matter. Just my thought.Tomahakarf (talk) 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Keep The article is notable enough to me because the references are taken from its official websites. Not one but two (Parent and Subsidiaries companies). The other references also reliable and strong.Kistara (talk) comment added 9:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Just keep it. Please don't delete. Why want to delete the good and informative article with the good source? Please recheck. If can improve the article then do it and please don't delete. If the source is the reason for deletion I think its nonsense. The source is strong and good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.106.172 (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google news search on the subject shows a sufficient number of good results to support WP:GNG. Improve the article with those sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn: I accept the consensus here. I'm busy right now, but I will do more digging for sources and will attempt to improve the article with them. I'm not able to do this for a couple of days, but I will. If anyone finds any sources, if you want add them to the article, or to the talk page and I will gladly incorporate them. Thank you all. // Timothy :: talk 20:12, 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 merge to Military Engineer Services. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Defence Contract Management Service[edit]

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

Merge: The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed nothing that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N. Some content could be merged into ~~Ministry of Defence (India)#Departments~~ Military Engineer Services. // Timothy :: talk 06:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I just got a message regarding nomination of this page for deletion. I would like to submit that this is one of the service in Military Engineer Services department under Ministry of Defence. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Engineer_Services

All the supporting documents can be provided for this service. If you have any queries, pl let me know, I shall be happy to answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavedjindal (talk • contribs) 08:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hello, the existence of the department is not being questioned, but the location of the information. The information should be merged into Ministry of Defence (India)#Departments and the standalone article redirected to that location. The information would be preserved and in that location, much more likely to be found and read. // Timothy :: talk 11:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge department doesn't meet WP:GNG and contains minutiae (pay scales) that is of no importance. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is longstanding consensus to keep government agencies of major countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Do you have any policies or guidelines to back up the claim that "There is longstanding consensus to keep government agencies of major countries" and that this overrides the guidelines and policies related to WP:N and the need for independent reliable secondary sources? // Timothy :: talk 11:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Military Engineer Services, being a branch of it. On a sidenote, these articles really need improvement. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Tayi Arajakate (thanks) Military Engineer Services seems a better merge target. I have struck my original target and replaced it with this suggestion. // Timothy :: talk 03:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Military Engineer Services, and as in another similar AfD, I likewise would like to see the evidence that there's a consensus to keep every government agency. Ravenswing 16:55, 21 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. – Joe (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lotha[edit]

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

The subject of the article has written three non-notable books and won a non-notable award. Other than that they have been a principal of a school. I can't see this passing WP:GNG or any other notability standard. Spiderone 16:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I am reading things right, he was head of an institution that is engaged in higher education and now offers degrees. Would this not be a pass of the academic notability guidelines for institution heads?John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only reliable source I can find that supports this claim is [30]. I'm assuming that this will override the fact that this clearly fails GNG? Spiderone 12:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep principal of a medium sized degree awarding institute is a senior academic per NPROF. PainProf (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:NPROF clearly states the following An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Major awards must be confirmed, claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on. Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details. Has anyone managed to find a good source to verify the claim of the article, as uncontroversial as it may be? Spiderone 15:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't normally cite press releases but 1 and 2 seem sufficient for that uncontroversial claim. PainProf (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have enough sourcing to show that he was the college head, this justifies keeping the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the sources are good enough to show he meets the WP:PROF special requirements. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essential factors model[edit]

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

A consulting paradigm that does not appear to meet WP:GNG. As near as I can tell, this neologism was coined by InterSafe Consultants, an apparently non-notable consulting firm, and has received exactly one brief critical mention in an RS. In CAT:NN since 2016; PRODded in 2015 and seemed to involve a fair amount of WP:COI editing. The company requested that this article be deleted in March of this year, but it doesn't appear that anything ever happened after that. (To be clear: I am not a representative of InterSafe: I came across this page when looking through CAT:NN.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination and the fact that it's incomprehensibly written. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, there is no sign of notability here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:14, 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) 14:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marksheet Verification[edit]

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

The term Marksheet Verification, means nothing more than the literal meaning verification of the marksheet (result/scorecard) by some authorised organisation. I do not see any need for an individual article for the topic. Zoodino (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability; merely a dictionary definition rather than an article Spiderone 08:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ab207 (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MaysinFourty (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reminds me of days past. - hako9 (talk) 04:01, 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. Sandstein 17:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chabadnitze[edit]

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

The article has only 1 source for what is an obscure concept, and most people within the Chabad sect would not know what this was. Fails with notability as well as lack of sources Playlet (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. As for what it is worth, I am an adherent of Chabad. Likewise, Cheder sheini should be deleted. Debresser (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:GNG. Yoninah (talk) 11:47, 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) 14:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Frazer, California[edit]

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

Another rail station mistakenly identified by GNIS as a community. There was briefly a post office here called Frazerville and then later called Glen Frazer. As we've seen, post offices back then were not a reliable indicator of a town or village. Several references call it a train station but no indications that it was ever a community. Does not meet basic notability standards. Glendoremus (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one is longer, better sourced, and even illustrated, but, again, the article does not establish why this location is notable.TH1980 (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND appears unpopulated. // Timothy :: talk 13:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This indicates that in addition to the post office and railroad station, there was a pumping station and a few residents of the area. Some more coverage [31] [32] [33]. Nothing to be gained by deleting this. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A pump station was not an uncommon piece of equipment at a railroad station during the age of steam locomotives. Frazier was the name of the ranch owner where this station was built. The other people mentioned in your citations were all railroad employees, not residents. Everything says this was a typical railroad station and not a community. Glendoremus (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak Keep Glen Frazer had a post office, which I feel meets the "Populated, legally recognized places" of WP:GEOLAND. There is a non-trivial article about the station, which includes a photo, which possibly meets WP:STATION. Here's an article that mentions residents of Glen Frazer and another about the same accident. George Frazer's obit, resident of Glen Frazer. Cxbrx (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a different opinion about what "legally recognized" means, but it seems like I've not been very successful about convincing others of my view, so I'm changing this to a Weak Keep so as to not block consensus. Cxbrx (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another erroneous GNIS designation. Post offices are not indicators of passing WP:GEOLAND because they are not legal recognition and in the context of a RR station a post office may be tied only to postal rail functions and not to a populated place. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the plain wording of WP:GEOLAND indicates a that GNIS listing and/or having had a post office confers notability. Yilloslime (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [34] describes it as a "depot" for the railway, which isn't a community, or even the kind of station where passengers can board. There are mentions in sources but they are all in the context of reports of routine railway operations. [35] makes it clear that there was a ranch nearby, but a ranch doesn't equal a community. There's certainly no sign of a community at the claimed coordinates now. WP:GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places. Having a post office doesn't equate to legal recognition and there isn't any good evidence of a community here anyway. If it's not a legally recognised populated place then it has to pass the GNG. Hut 8.5 06:48, 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 redirect to Cattle Decapitation#Discography. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homovore[edit]

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

Apparently a non-notable album. The only source in the article is a primary source from the band itself. Metal-archives and discogs, which turned up in a WP:BEFORE search, are both user-generated. Everything else I'm finding appears to be blogs/sales sites/user-generated. Despite having ... unusual ... track titles such as "Bathing in a Grease Disposal Unit" and "Diarrhea of the Mouth", this album seems to have gained no reliable coverage. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cattle Decapitation ("Discography" section). An early release by a band who became notable later, but at the time this album was largely unnoticed and hence only appears as a brief listing in places that reprint the band's discography. A couple of side notes: (1) The band has some other obscure early releases before and after this one, which may be eligible for this type of discussion. (2) If you think the song titles here are ... unusual ... avoid exploring the rest of the goregrind genre. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cattle Decapitation. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cattle Decapitation: Barely found anything about the album aside from a Metal Archives review and the 20th anniversary celebration of the album with a music video of one of the songs from the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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. T. Canens (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North American House, California[edit]

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

Other than Durham, the only reference to this is in a story about a holdup repeated in several sources, all of which refer to people coming from the North American House. Waystation, maybe, but I find no reference to this as a settlement. A passing reference in a story and an entry in a book of placenames is just not enough for notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. newspapers.com shows a number of Stockton-area papers from the 1860s to 1880s making reference to the North American House on the road to Mokelumne Hill, California, most often the scene of an arrest, an attack, a duel, or a stagecoach robbery. Pacific Bee of Sacramento August 20 1886: "...we are at the North American House, on the old Mokelumne Hill and Stockton road. This place has from time immemorial been a stage station, and is famous for the number of stages robbed near it in (sic) and since the flush times." Mildly interesting, but clearly not a settlement. --Lockley (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Negligent mass-creation with utter disregard for WP:V and WP:N. Reywas92^Talk 03:04, 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. T. Canens (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Reddy[edit]

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

Couldn't find any reliable sources about this film producer and actor. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established, fails GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 13:28, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TiMidity++[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN product, fails the GNG. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Notability tagged for over a decade. Previous AfD was closed as no consensus, with the two keep proponents claiming "mentioned in a lot of books" and coming in with WP:IUSEIT rationales, and neither responding to statements that the extant coverage only consisted of namedrops. Ravenswing 04:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 04:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to it's usage as standalone player it is also used as synthesizer engine in several video games such as OpenTTD (see here for evidence of that fact) and a few game engines - which perhaps could be mentioned in the article as well. Timidity also has a reasonably comprehensive article in the Archlinux wiki which does speak to it's notability (of course articles in other wikis have no influence on this wiki, but interesting nonetheless). More relevant to the relevance discussion perhaps are several mentions in scientific papers, such as this or this, which make use of this software. welterde, 2001:678:C70:0:6:3:0:9 (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And my response is that none of that matters: an article's suitability for a Wikipedia article doesn't rest on an unsourced article in another wiki, or casual namedrops in a couple papers, but in significant coverage in reliable sources. That is wholly lacking here. Ravenswing 11:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just casual name drops, but that they used timidity++ in their work. Not quite the same as merely mentioning it exists. welterde, 2001:678:C70:0:6:3:0:9 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the arguments mentioned by the first anonymous voter, this software has two chapters dedicated to it in a book called Linux Sound Programming ISBN 978-1-4842-2495-3 (chapters 21 and 28) from a major publisher (Springer). I would consider this non-trivial coverage. RoseCherry64 (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't go just by chapter headings—what does the text say? Linux Sound Programming is more of a how-to manual, and the "chapters" (doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-2496-0_21; doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-2496-0_28) are just code examples with zero background on the software itself or its importance. I'm struggling to see what can be cited from it at all. Mentions in scientific papers are not significant coverage. Mentions in the user-generated Arch wiki (or any other unreliable source) do not indicate external notability. Not seeing any useful redirect targets either. Altogether, lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 19:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how what kind of book it's covered in is relevant. It's still significantly/independently covered in that source, even though you might not find it usable to cite. RoseCherry64 (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Tolibao[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Try as I might I cannot see how this person passes our Notability threshold. I see an article on a jobbing illustrator performing their job well, but many jobbing illustrators exist and perform their jobs well. What I cannot see is inherent notability

I note that a prior AfD kept the article. This current deletion discussion is the result of a contested CSD Fiddle Faddle 07:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 07:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 07:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 07:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 07:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 07:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ARTIST sections (1), (3), (4c). [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] // Timothy :: talk 12:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As found in the last AFD he gets significant coverage [41] I click the search for reliable sources link at the top of the AFD and I find this [42] as well. Elsewhere I see people giving brief praise of his work, but those two sources give far more coverage of him. Dream Focus 04:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Only two of the sources above ([43] from interaksyon and [44] from The Philippine Star) seem to be relatively in-depth, third is an interview, others are just mentions in passing. This is very borderline and right now I am on the fence. Can anyone find better sources? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep per above. Apple731a (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)~~ Struck !vote from blocked disruption-only account editing here to WP:GAME autoconfirmed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV as shown by the Phillipines Star article and Yahoo article, among others. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm always wary around WP:BLP articles because they can start to be a magnet for inaccuracies or worse. I did find this other source from another regional publication, and it's not clear it meets the standard for reliability. I need editors more well-versed in this type of article to make the call. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Today I left neutrally worded talk page notices on the Wikiprojects related to the Delsort categories above, to try and get more input. // Timothy :: talk 17:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ [45] is the best I could find, and it's not WP:SIGCOV. (Here b/c of TB's message; confirming that it was not canvassing :)) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Now weak delete per Toughpigs's sources. I'm not convinced by Interaksyon (no byline, extravagant claims, looks like a gossip site), but I am convinced by the article in the Philippine Star. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This Phillipine Star article is a lengthy profile of Tolibao. This Interaksyon/Phillipine Star interview is in-depth. (I don't think the "it's an interview" argument makes sense here; it's a sign that Tolibao is a person worth interviewing.) Same for this Yahoo News article. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Article is poorly sourced and some links mentioning is coverage aren't really reliable, such as podcasts and Yahoo! News. I could not find any news feature that highlights and reviews specific works that he is known for. lullabying (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article meets our notability standard with reliable sources. If the article is poorly sourced, that is a reason to improve, not delete. Wm335td (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Yahoo article tips the scales, along with a few other sources that are at least borderline. Should be rewritten to ensure no WP:BLP violations. Jontesta (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep since subject passes, if barely, WP:NCREATIVE as well as WP:GNG. We have a profile in The Philippine Star, another profile in InterAksyon, another in Yahoo News, and a report about a creative-arts conference where our subject was a "key speaker." Then there's an article in Comics Beat magazine about the game Magic: The Gathering whose creator and also our subject is featured prominently throughout. He scratches the bar and makes it shake and rattle but he clears the jump. -The Gnome (talk) 15:05, 22 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 03:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dead File[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Third time pays for all, one hopes. In any event, this article fails WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, as well as the GNG with flying colors. Article has been notability tagged for over thirteen years. While being a barely intelligible rant is not a violation of policy, per se, this article surely qualifies as one.

The second nomination frankly proffered no valid grounds to delete, and closed as no consensus. The first, however ... I’m saddened to see keeps from several veteran editors claiming that the article was adequately sourced, when it is obvious that they didn’t actually READ the sources.

I just did. Obviously, official inquiries from both the UK and NZ governments are reliable. However, of the two reports cited, the Foster report does not mention the subject at all, and the Powles report does so only as a namedrop in its appendix list of documents. Neither satisfies the GNG, nor obviously does Scientology’s internal documents. (And were this ever so heavily and adequately sourced, it still fails NOR and SYNTH.) Ravenswing 17:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2015-08 no consensus, 2008-01 ✓ keep

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd delete... It needs sourcing and apparently has needed it for some length of time. In the current form it isn't really reliable. 400 Lux (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate just saying 'per nom', but: exactly per nom. :) As an aside, it's incredible this has survived not just for so many years but also two AfDs! Somehow I feel if this were written today, it'd get deleted as soon as it went live... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an unreliable article that is not supported by sufficient resources. Reads like it has been copied from a manual of some kind. Whiteguru (talk) 09:12, 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. Sandstein 11:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Columbo Group[edit]

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

I have researched this company and can't find any sources of notability, it does not meet the requirements of WP:NCOMPANY + WP:GNG.

The article is written like a PR exercise/ advertisement, the creator only edited this page + a couple of others that appear to be related, MAMA & Company + XOYO. Devokewater@ 00:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Devokewater@ 00:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Devokewater@ 00:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Devokewater@ 00:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Devokewater@ 00:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with User:Devokewater. Appears to be run by two ambitious young business people. May be a case of Wikipedia:Too soon.Knox490 (talk) 06:33, 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 redirect to The company P. Content can be merged from history if desired. Bottom line is nobody here is very convinced that this is something notable. Sandstein 17:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy For Good[edit]

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

This article is written like a advertisement for what appears to be a very obscure company. No secondary sources are cited, and the subject likely fails WP:GNG. A previous AfD ended without consensus due to a lack of participation. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 23:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No-consensus (no participation) AfD in 2010 here. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: This appears to have begun as a multimedia project involving The company P and Tim Kring and gained Banff World Media Festival awards. (I have added sources for that history into the article.) However the website indicates that it has subsequently become a vehicle for providing marketing content. Given the awards, the initial project is possibly notable, but I am less convinced that its subsequent life as a company has demonstrable notability. AllyD (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There's an academic article about the 2010 campaign/event (DOI:10.1080/14794713.2015.1084807). But as AllyD points out, maybe it's just that specific campaign that is notable. If no-one has the energy to clean this up, maybe we could just merge a couple of sentences into the article on Kring and call it a day. Haukur (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single one of the references provides in-depth information *on the company*. Perhaps the 2010 campaign/event meets the criteria for notability, but the company's references don't meet the criteria and therefore this topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 16 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 04:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Open Sorcery[edit]

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

A game that has won a single small conference award and has had no significant coverage in reliable sources. Also looks like it was written by a very likely COI or undisclosed paid editor. ~~Either way, seems WP:TOOSOON.~~ - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure I'd agree it's WP:TOOSOON - it's just straight-up non-notable. There is nothing much else to add given that it lacks any significant coverage._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For some reason, I didn't really notice the date. I was also trying to soften the blow with the words "Too Soon" (in case the original editor was the developer and saw the discussion), since the Wiki concept of notability doesn't always make sense to new editors. But you're right, that essay is not applicable here. I struck it above. - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This will never be a case of WP:TOOSOON as the game released in 2016. I was unable to find anything that would count as a significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, besides a WP:PRIMARY blog post by the developer on Gamasutra. The article doesn't help either (besides the IndieCade nomination, which by itself is not enough): interviews, unreliable sources (Gamebits), store listings, an award on a non-notable conference. A clear failure of WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak keep~~, I may be biased as I know many of the folks involved in "Meaningful Play" (all for different reasons weirdly), but yeah, an award for that carries some weight. Gamers with jobs probably counts as a RS. The rest probably don't but it's a close call (professional-grade podcasts etc.). Hobit (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit A website with no staff listed like Gamers with Jobs is no way a WP:RS, and will never be. Considering you haven't really proven how Meaningful Play is notable (besides admitting you are biased in that regard), I stand strongly about my vote. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I'll go with IAR keep. This is, IMO, a perfectly reasonable article to have. It's an award-winning innovative game. But yeah, I justify that by the GNG, so I'm left with IAR. Hobit (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR only applies when unnecessary rules are impeding proper function of the encyclopedia. This is not one of those times, the rules appear to be working as intended, and that argument simply falls into WP:INTERESTING._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, no reliable indepth significant coverage. No notable awards. This is not a TOOSOON, as it's years past now, it's simply not notable. Essentially, per Jovanmilic97. -- ferret (talk) 14:53, 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 speedy keep. The nominator has asked for the nomination to be withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ego (2013 film)[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sources/notable reviews for this film. Hence it is not notable. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - many sources added from The Hindu, The New Indian Express, Sify etc - please look harder before putting articles up for deletion. Neutral Fan (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are least two full length reviews from IE and Sify which establish notability. --Ab207 (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage including reviews in multiple outlets so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I, the creator, of the discussion did not realize that sources exist. I am sorry. Kindly close the discussion. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:11, 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. WP:HEY Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew J. Levander[edit]

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

non-notable attorney. Involvement in a great many fairly routine cases. I think our usual standard is either extensive press coverage for himself not primarily in connection with a case, or involvement in cases which are notable in the WP sense, or head of a state bar association, or the like. None of these are present. Awards like best lawyers in America are pure PR, just like this article. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG's well-thought-out nomination. —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Just as a doctor with well known patients would not inherit notability, neither does this biography. One would think there would be more about activity of a notable U.S. Attorney, but no. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete DGG Thank you so much for nominating this! This page should go and Dechert should go as well if not be rewritten accordingly given what Wikiprofessionals has done. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 17:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a run of the mill corporate lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Gotta buck the trend here. You have to Google him first. Reuters identifies him in as a "prominent lawyer"[[46]] and "top white-collar defense lawyer Andrew Levander".[[47]] From the latter Reuters coverage "Levander, a partner at the law firm Dechert LLP, is one of the biggest names in the defense bar in the United States." His cases are by no means run of the mill. Tanaka's airbag suit was a whopper. Barclay's was huge. Former Governor Corzine's lawsuit made national news.[[48]] From that article in the Seattle Times, "Corzine has hired prominent defense attorney Andrew Levander of New York, according to a person familiar with the situation." Seattle knows he is prominent, across the country. There are also pieces in the NY Times calling him a leading white collar criminal defense lawyer.[[49]] I would like to see more personal profile info and less garbage sourcing in fawning law directories, but that's an editing job, not a delete. So it's a keep and fix. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft for stripping of puffery and possible development of sources. BD2412 T 05:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another Dechert lawyer. Most of the coverage is in passing mentions. Open statements, my client said, said his client, told the judge and so on. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No real secondary sources. The Seatle Time link above, is hired prominent, another mention. scope_creep^Talk 08:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I thought the sources I found and argument I made would be enough. Multiple national sources calling him notable. While it's very rare for people to change their votes, since they don't want to look like they only gave this a cursory glance, new delete votes surprise me. The original nom claims Levander's cases are non-notable, which is clearly not true. Is there some underlying subtext I'm missing? I see a reference to Wikiprofessionals above. To the closer - give me a day (it's Wednesday AM now) - I'm going to remove the poor sourcing and add better ones, and flesh out his bio as much as I can. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tightened it up a bit, and removed some fluff. I still wish there were more in-depth profiles that I could include, but if you head up a big white collar defense firm that values client confidentiality, I'm guessing self-promotion is frowned on. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Issues discussed here, in nominations and in delete votes, seem to me to have been resolved by User:Timtempleton's edits. Msclguru (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_attorneys. He was an Notes Editor of the Columbia Law Review, clerked for United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, was an assistant Solicitor General, and was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Mother Court. He is chairperson of one of the largest law firms in the world. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That a newspaper calls someone prominent or notable when it mentions him is fluff, not judgement. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep or possibly merge – that can be discussed on the talk page. – Joe (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Malyar[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The only web sources I could find are mostly focussed on this movement PTM. I cant find many reliable sources that are independent of this subject. The coverage that exists for this person consist mostly of routine coverage of the movement and a few articles regarding his arrest. But certainly "significant coverage" does not exist, which is a key requirement in meeting WP:GNG Kami2018 (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kami2018 (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kami2018 (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kami2018 (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it seems a well sourced article about a notable personality. Khestwol (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, as I have written before, the nom Kami2018, who is mass reporting Pashtun articles for deletion, has disruptively edited articles about Pashtuns in the past and was recently given "last warning" on his talk page twice for removing sourced content from various related articles. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above CreativeNorth (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Undoubtedly keep. The nomination is WP:DE. The article deserves to stay.--Harryishere (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 08:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possibly a disruptive nomination. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge This article is well-written and has multiple sources that appear to meet WP:BIO. The numerous AFD nominations on similar Pakistani activists make me agree with other wikipedians that this could be disruptive editing. Terasaface (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Terasaface How is nominating these articles disruptive when they dont even have a single article or source dedicated to them. They dont fall under the general notability guidelines and wikipedia gives the right to nominate the articles. They are barely mentioned when they are either arrested in a group or when they are sitting with leader of the movement. The person who is notable is Manzoor Pashteen, Mohsin Dawar etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kami2018 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kami2018, thank you for linking Manzoor Pashteen and Mohsin Dawar; looking closer I do see your point in comparing these subjects' notability. From my point-of-view it seems disruptive to nominate seven articles from the same creator for deletion on the same day, however, I also see now that Khestwol has a 33% deletion rate of new articles created, which is also suspicious. This situation may be an edit-war or simply editors not assuming good faith, neither of which are the proper ways to engage in this dialogue. I believe we must act with sensitivity regarding articles related to the ongoing Arab–Israeli conflict, however, upon further review I do agree that this article may not quite meet WP:BIO after all. I am changing my vote to Merge and I believe we can merge this information into Pashtun Tahafuz Movement. Terasaface (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Terasaface. Thanks for your !vote, but your opinion is not clear to me. Merge to where; Pashtun Tahafuz Movement or Pashtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PMAP), as he officially represents PMAP (in the past general election)? Khestwol (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Those arguing to keep this are pointing to the sources currently in the article, but whether they constitute substantive coverage has not really been discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per @Terasaface: Ytpks896 (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I replied above to @Terasaface: Jamal Malyar is officially a member of Pashtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (as in the recent general election), not Pashtun Tahafuz Movement. Terasaface has not answered my last question related to this point (although she was initially arguing in favor of keeping). Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 07:25, 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 delete. czar 04:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riasat Ali[edit]

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

An apparent BLP about a figure in cricket and politics who does not appear to satisfy WP:NCRIC or WP:NPOL. The best argument for notability I can come up with is that he satisfies NPOL by having held state/province–wide office by being general secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee. Except that (1) I cannot find a single source to verify that claim; and (2) even assuming it is true, I am skeptical that a state-level party official counts as notable by this standard.

As for the cricket arguments, he turns up as an also-ran in this article and a few carbon copies of it about the fallout from the Lodha Committee. He never played professional cricket, as far as I know. Rather, he had various positions in the Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association. I'm not sure how to treat a sport official under NCRIC—I'm tempted to view notability for sport officials as analogous to notability for politicians. In which case, as a state-level cricket official, he might be notable, but I cannot find enough WP:SIGCOV to back that up.

Flagging that I just moved the article from "Riasatali", which seemed incorrect given how the name is spelled in the article. It's a clear autobio; creator Riasataliofficial is indef blocked. Tagged for notability since 2013; PROD—quite reasonably—declined in 2016. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think NPOL applies for non-governmental offices like party positions and cricket associations, that too for a state unit. We can only go by GNG, on which the subject seems to fail. --Ab207 (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 13:28, 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 move to draftspace as a suitable alternative to deletion. czar 19:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 in British television[edit]

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

Unsourced. Contains no information except empty headers and boxes, aside from some supposedly renewed shows. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Created by a user who vandalized European Windstorm pages, absolutely no references, WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL, it's like creating an article for 2022—23 European Windstorm Season. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 19:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Destroyeraa, Regarding your edit warring over CSD, have you read WP:NOTCSD? Adam9007 (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: OK, I will remove the part of the CSD that says Crystal-ball or toosoon. This article has literally no information about the subject - 2021 in British Television. It is not even 2021 yet! It only has some unsourced info about historical things in British television. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 01:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Destroyeraa, But how is This is a list of events taking place in 2021 relating to Television in the United Kingdom. not sufficient context to identify the subject? A1 is not about information (or lack thereof). Adam9007 (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007 and Foxnpichu: Result: Move this page to a draft. Therefore, readers won't be looking at a mostly blank page. Agreed? ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 01:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Destroyeraa, But would such a draft have potential (yet)? I agree that this is probably WP:TOOSOON; when G13 is likely to come, it'll only be February. Perhaps this should wait for a few months? Adam9007 (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: Leaving it here as an article isn't helpful to readers. All they will see is some a bunch of blank space with TBA written in the tables and a list of TV shows at the bottom. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 01:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyeraa, Then perhaps incubation is the best course of action. Adam9007 (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: Let me find an administrator so they can close this discussion. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 15:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyeraa, That might be seen as WP:CANVASSing, and I highly doubt that WP:SNOW applies yet; all we have so far is a very local consensus. Adam9007 (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam9007 Just letting this article stay where it is now isn't doing anything good. Both of us agree to move this to a non-article space (preferably draftspace), but to move it, this discussion first needs to be closed. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 15:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s keep the discussion up for now, though. Somebody (or some users) might come into the conversation with a valid excuse to support either of you. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:30, 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.