< 14 July	16 July >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense Party (UK)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. This article fails GNG and ORG and whilst there are citations, they only prove existence rather than achievement. There is no notability prior to, or following, elections and no notable election result. Usefulness is not a valid reason to retain an article. doktorb _words^deeds 22:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 22:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 22:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 22:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the previous AfD debate, the rationale for keeping the page was that the party was extant. As this is no longer the case, and per the nominator's comments, there seems no reason to keep the page. It's a near-orphan and it doesn't appear to be connected with anyone significant, so there's no obvious target for a redirect. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Glossary of nautical terms#way. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Way (vessel)[edit]

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

Dictionary entry, not a full Wikipedia article.

The CSD I requested was denied. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. It does not qualify for deletion. Further, other articles link to it. The English word "way" has so many meanings that, for example, if you were to consult the OED to discover its meaning in the context of a ship's velocity, you will first have to wade through 14,900 irrelevant words. In contrast, a wikilink in the article gives you the answer instantly and in context. Ttocserp 23:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks more suitable for Wiktionary instead. Fails WP:NOTDIC --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge/redirect to Glossary of nautical terms#way; is a simple dictionary entry. Article is linked from just Passage of Humaitá and Jury rigging, both of which can link to the glossary instead; baffled where the idea came from that being linked to makes it immune from change. Reywas92^Talk 23:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of nautical terms#way. This is a dictionary entry. We have a glossary of nautical terms, and it has an entry for "Way". No need for standalone article.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with redirect to Glossary of nautical terms#way. Didn't know it existed. Wish I had: would have saved me trouble. Ttocserp 08:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You might want to strikeout (not delete) your previous opposition in that case. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would, except that the formal proposal is to delete altogether.Ttocserp 16:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Redirecting is a perfectly legitimate outcome of an AFD as per WP:AFDFORMAT. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as others have already said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of nautical terms#way where it is already covered in more detail. –dlthewave ☎ 19:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Fascist Party[edit]

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

The Revolutionary Fascist Party never existed, just a web search is enough to see that there is no trace of an italian party with this name. The entire content of the page clearly refers to the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, the real predecessors of the National Fascist Party. The creation of this page is probably due to the misunderstanding of its author. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, thank you for catching this. I just checked the sources used for the article, and you're right, none of them speak of a "Revolutionary Fascist Party" or "Fascist Revolutionary Party", except for one primary source (more on that below). Other than that one, all the sources simply talk about "the Fascists", or explicitly about the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento. Also, several sources were badly misrepresented by the article text, and say things that are quite different from what the article says. This leads me to believe that whoever originally wrote most of the text was prone to misunderstandings. So even if it were not deleted, the article would need to be rewritten.

The one source that uses the term "Fascist Revolutionary Party" is the first one - a 1933 English translation of a 1932 text by Mussolini - and the term is only used by that source one time, in passing. Here is the context:

When, in the now distant March of 1919, I [Mussolini] summoned a meeting at Milan through the columns of the Popolo d' Italia of the surviving members of the Interventionist Party who had themselves been in action, and who had followed me since the creation of the Fascist Revolutionary Party (which took place in the January of 1915), I had no specific doctrinal attitude in my mind.

That's it. That is the only reference to a "Fascist Revolutionary Party" or "Revolutionary Fascist Party" that I was able to find anywhere. This exact same primary source text is reproduced (word-for-word) in several different books (for example in Mediterranean Fascism), and the article cites those books as if they were separate sources, which they are not. I can only assume that this 1933 translation is using the English word "party" in its older sense of "faction" or "movement" or "group of people" (especially since an "Interventionist Party" is also mentioned, and there was never a party by that name, either). In any case, Wikipedia should definitely not assert the existence of a political party because one primary source from 1933 mentions it once. Ohff (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the redirect Fascist Revolutionary Party should be deleted as well. Ohff (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Deciga[edit]

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

Notability seems borderline; the subject has coverage in 1, 2, 3 4 sources, but this is about it from what I can tell. Could be merged or redirected to Everipedia if this isn't enough for notability. Adam9007 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the feedback! Really appreciate it! I have added more resources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anselkamil (talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Forbes article was published without any editorial oversight - the article includes a disclaimer to that effect. The Yahoo article is a copy of the latestly article, which clearly says "All articles published here are Syndicated/Partnered/Sponsored feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body. The views and facts appearing in the articles do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY, also LatestLY does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same." So those are not reliable sources. This appears to me to be an attempt by Deciga to establish his credibility, but the sources do not support the claims made in the article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contest the nomination- Hi I would like to contest the deletion proposal. Please see https://research.binance.com/en/projects/everipedia

Deciga is listed as a co-founder in this scholarly research by the Binance team. Thank you. Anselkamil —Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- That's literally a crypto exchange blog post - David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - co-founder (along with Sam Kazemian, Theodor Forselius, Travis Moore, Mahbod Moghadam) of a significant company. Patapsco913 (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's reliable, in depth coverage about the others. Is there about Deciga? Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing about Deciga to establish notability. Being one of several co-founders of a notable company does not make someone default notable without actual sourcing at a level to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete paid for spam, just like the sources. I can find no actual coverage of this person. Praxidicae (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a paid spam article, that was cited to paid spam sources (a pile of which I just removed) - David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cannot find any reputable sources required per GNG. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE, Merge with Everipedia page. I see some other news articles, but all except Engadget are anything good. There is also Forbes.in, but it's not the actual Forbes and could be a paid article. But most importantly who has ever heard of this guy or Everipedia? Since Everipedia already has a page, I recommend adding a section about him there and merging. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If someone is actually going to transwiki this let me know and I will provide the source Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OMKV[edit]

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

This is local Malayalam slang word that was a fad few years ago. This is like having a Wikipedia page for simp. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable term. Kaweendra (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree, this isn't a very helpful !vote as it doesn't say why you think it's not notable.
Keep (1) As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not limited to geographical boundaries of native English communities. So OMKV is not "local", and Malayalis use this across the globe. (2) Age of the slang doesn't make a slang obsolete, even leet and pwn are atleast a decade old. OMKV--Praveen:talk 09:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this was the original author of the article.
The article at Leet isn't even remotely a dictionary definition of a single term though; it has a waaaaay broader scope, and you can't compare this with that. Pwn is probably a more apt comparison, but frankly, I don't think that one should have a separate article either, and as always, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No one has claimed that this being non-English is a factor, so that's a straw man. Your claim of it being used "across the globe" is irrelevant also; any word in a language with global usage would qualify for that too. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pwn (3rd nomination). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Praveen and WP:NTEMP. Its malayalam page seems to be notable. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Different Wikipedias can have different inclusion criteria. The fact that there's a page on the Malaylam Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
  - There really is nothing wrong with dragging the same article from a different language to this discussion. I know nothing about Malayalam, but anyone who understands the language can pick some sources in the Malayalam article, put them in the English article and make some improvements. Therefore, that really is (and will be) relevant to this discussion, no matter what. So, don't bother arguing with me. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact that the article exists in other languages is not a policy-based argument for keeping the article Spiderone 08:05, 14 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) 11:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be a notable term Spiderone 09:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a meaningful !vote unless you explain why you think it's notable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has in-depth mentions in multiple reliable sources as linked in the article Spiderone 16:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Which ones? Because all I saw (if reliable at all) were nothing more than reporting on the story about how this one person used it this one time, and/or a definition of the term. This isn't anywhere near what you need to write an article about a word or term. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 12:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Notability for a word or term is a very high bar to reach. See Ain't for one case that meets it. This doesn't get there by a mile. It takes more than a few passing mentions of a slang term that got some news hits because person A called person B a naughty word to establish notability for a word. Sources need to offer in-depth coverage about wide cultural impact of a word, and this doesn't have that.
When you boil the article down to its basic components, you get Definition, Etymology, and Trivia, which isn't enough for an article (the first two alone per WP:NOTDICT), and it's hard to see how it could be any more than that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is far more than a dictionary entry, I don't see that being a good argument.★Trekker (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is more than a dictionary entry as much as your !vote is more than an empty contradiction of the main delete rationale being proposed (i.e., not). This article contains definition, etymology, and a couple quasi-noteworthy usages. That's sufficient for a dictionary, but that doesn't even remotely pass WP:NOTDICT, which is exactly what that policy page explains. Even the person-A-calling-person-B event isn't even remotely notable enough for its own article, let alone for having an article the word as a word. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a fad. I see no recent coverage about the term or any strong indication that it is indeed notable. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be a brief entry in a list of slang words, not enough at this point for an article all by itself. Oaktree b (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary only media coverage is not enough to establish the notability of the subject. The term does not refer to a major political or social campaign. It has just been distributed by a few of internet users and then by an actor/actress as an "expression". TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In view of additional references that provide the GNG rationale. Tone 10:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SkyscraperCity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been created for a while, but doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia's notability standards. Basically all the citations on this article are either not reliable sources or they didn't discuss this subject in sufficient details (if at all) or both. I also tried to do some quick search on the internet, but can't really find any editorial coverage. I believe a discussion around this page needs to happen.

Edit: I just found out that the page has in fact been nominated for deletion four times before now, and the consensus has been to delete all four times. Seems, this article is being continuously recreated, despite the lack of notability. I advise that the topic should be protected from further recreations, if it is deleted again this time. Jamie Tubers (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last discussion was four years ago, G4 ("Recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion") probably doesn't apply. (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, the last discussion closed in 2016. However, this recreation was made the same year, but for some weird reasons escaped nomination for 4 years.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find it ironic. This page was deleted 4 times through AfD, yet it was still recreated less than a year after it was deleted. It should've been protected from creation indefinitely years ago after being deleted for the 4th time. 🤔 ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least both [1] and [2] are significant coverage. The article has 11 interwikis and 25 readers daily, obviously there is a small but constant demand for that article.Jklamo (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first link is just a passing mention, while the second link is from some neighbourhood newssite (questionable reliability, and certainly not sufficient to establish notability). Interwiki links or number of readers are quite irrelevant to the notability of the subject.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have a web site that meets GNG. I have added some RS to the article. We have many news organizations which quote the site, and also link to the photographs. I think we can make a case for WP:WEBCRIT being met. Lightburst (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Is loopnorth [3] seems like a reliable source and give sit significant coverage. The National (Abu Dhabi) is a reliable source giving it significant coverage. Looking through the many search results, it is used as a source by a lot of legitimate news sites, quoting what was posted there and showing pictures people uploaded there for anyone to use. Google skyscrapercity.com and you get 7,080 results to sort through. Dream Focus 00:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lightburst and Dream Focus, it is ranked by Alexa as 6,696th in global engagement, and 12 other wikis have an entry as well Patapsco913 (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - With 4 prior AFDs ending in delete, it should not have been recreated. It doesn't pass GNG, and if someone has new GNG-qualifying sources to share, that should be brought to DRV. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The last AFD was in 2016. Dream Focus 16:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references. I can add more - however I think there are sufficient refs ATM. Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep slim, but enough to bring over GNG, plus reasoning provided above.Djflem (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. By this time, the article is good enough to pass WP:NWEB. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zyggo[edit]

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

Not notable musician, article created by subject, PROD removed by IP with no explanation. Renata (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The page appears to have been created by its subject, and from the edit history it seems likely that the IP editor who's the only other major contributor may be him too. The page falls far short of WP:SINGER. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as usual. 124.123.182.61 (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in IRS, fails both WP:GNG and WP:SINGER.Less Unless (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Power-Up (book)[edit]

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

No reliable references. Fails WP:GNG. Author does not have an article. Fails WP:BOOKCRIT. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I know Kohler has previously written for Wired, so I don't have any doubts this is a legitimate book that would likely also be a reliable source for various video game articles. As an article itself, though, I didn't come up with much proving its notability as a standalone book. My WP:BEFORE turned up dry, so it appears not to meet WP:GNG. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Kohler's book is a great read, and it's been very useful for a lot of articles. As a standalone article though, I don't see it being notable. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Crabs[edit]

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

Article about an animated film with no indication it meets the WP:NFILM criteria. It has three sources: two are very brief passing mentions in information about unrelated works, and the third doesn't mention the film at all. Also may be a recreation of a previously deleted draft (checking). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a recreation, but seems to have been cut-and-pasted from an identical draft which was subsequently speedy deleted. I have repaired the page history. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG - no in-depth discussion in these sources, merely passing mentions in lists of other movies in development. For right now, there isn't enough for an article. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. BOVINEBOY2008 19:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree...too soon. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon. We've deleted articles about much more likely events and releases for 2022. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amor Maior (season 1)[edit]

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

Poor references. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NTV which require reliable sources, which this does not contain as Programming Listings are not reliable given they are primary sources. Fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

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

Delete Per nom. Even the top level article for the series has no sources. North8000 (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to AFD administrator Amor Maior (season 2) AFD page does not exist and the afd template at that article (mis?-)directs to this page. North8000 (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AFD for why that is. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn, Somalia[edit]

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

There is no mention of "Ayn" being a region in both citations provided. Additionally, there is no mention of it becoming the new title for "Buuhoodle District". Jacob300 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending evidence that this subject meets WP:V policy requirements. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unverified. SL93 (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Prasad (Journalist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable journalist who doesn’t satisfy WP:JOURNALIST & lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG also. Celestina007 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public Oversight (United States)[edit]

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

pure advocacy, no references DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not even sure this is advocacy, but more of a new user misunderstanding what Wikipedia is about. This reads more like an opening (and unfinished) explanation for an online class about American government. Perhaps even a primer for a new citizenship class. — Maile (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Wikipedia isn't the place for political opinion pieces. The article contains some elements that may be integrated or some that probably are already a part of existing articles, but it's all written in a completely ridiculous way and is nowhere near neutral. Also doesn't contain references.--Galebazz (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't what wikipedia is about and for. The creeper2007^Talk! ^{Be well, stay safe} 19:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 01:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others' comments. I note that the page's creator has commented here with their motivation and intentions for the page, but Wikipedia simply isn't the appropriate forum for this sort of material. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay, not an article. Dgpop (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:OR. To create an encyclopedia article out of this essay or school report would take many hours. We just don't publish original research, and never have. In 2020, everybody knows what Wikipedia is about, and this isn't it. I would not oppose putting this in user space for somebody to work on it. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kreston International Limited[edit]

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

Non notable organization which falls short of WP:ORG. A before search reveals the organization being mentioned in primary sources not independent of them & other unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no in-depth coverage to pass WP:NCORP. I work in the industry and never heard of them... Renata (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant advertising; wording sounds like a membership leaflet. Deb (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - shamelessly promotional, no evidence of notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet any of the guidelines. Less Unless (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. It's so poorly written that I can't tell what it is about. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Voestalpine. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metsec[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:NCORP, it does not contain any citation, does not have any real information about the company and has now merged with parent company and doesn’t trade under this name anymore PlunketMcShane (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 09:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to its parent company, Voestalpine. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Voestalpine. SL93 (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, per WP:CHEAP, and because there are no citations. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Terence M. Green. Tone 10:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barking Dogs[edit]

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

This was just tagged ((db-band)), which shouldn't be used for longstanding articles that look like sources can be found. However, I've had a look and I can't see anything at all that could make this article properly sourced, and can't see a hope of improving it. What does everyone else think? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the editor who nominated this for a speedy deletions I did not see anything that even hinted this band would meet notable guidelines. --VViking_TalkEdits 17:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: no evidence that they pass WP:NBAND. I could be persuaded to change my vote to redirect to Jason Barnard, the only member to have his own WP page, but I'm not convinced he's going to pass his own AfD debate. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept as band, redirect to novel Note that French wikipedia has a dab page which would be deleted on sight on English wikipedia, but which led me to the novel which seems to merit a "from book to author" redirect. PamD 09:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Redirect to Terence M. Green, the novel's author: if the outcome of Jason Barnard's AfD is a "keep", the hatnote could be put at the top of Green's page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm not clear what "notability" of someone's filmography, rather than themselves as an acting professional, is being looked for here; that notwithstanding, this seems like a good application of WP:SPLIT, as several of the users in the discussion have pointed out. Notability doesn't really affect that, it's just size and content relevance. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhan Finneran filmography[edit]

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

Actress isn't notable enough on her own and hasn't starred in enough notable films/television shows (though I cannot find any notability guidelines on filmographies) to merit her own filmography page, and instead this should be merged onto her own page. ser! (let's discuss it). 17:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ser! (let's discuss it). 17:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ser! (let's discuss it). 17:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ser! (let's discuss it). 17:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this seems to be more of a WP:SPLIT situation based on size rather than notability. Finneran's credits are large enough at present, and they will only grow. – DarkGlow (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: out of interest, is there a policy anywhere regarding the size of credit lists and whether they should be split or not, or is that just on a case by case basis? ser! (let's discuss it). 21:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser!: I've never come across one. I think it should be something that's looked into creating, since filmography articles are common. – DarkGlow (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I'd agree with you there. Definitely something for the relevant WikiProject people to look into! ser! (let's discuss it). 23:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Finneran is a popular and busy actor whose list of works will continue to increase. Surely her notability is not in question? Poltair (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not in doubt to have her own personal page if that's what you're asking, merely not for her own filmography page, for which I haven't seen precedent for actors of similar notability. ser! (let's discuss it). 21:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful clarification. It seems that the relevant policy is WP:SPLIT as DarkGlow suggests, and that there isn't a clear policy on when a split should occur based on the size of credit lists or the notability of performers. It might have been preferable that the split be discussed as per WP:PROSPLIT, at which the issues of article size and notability may have been raised, but that didn't happen and the filmography now exists. In regard to article size, if the articles were merged this would total 50-60,000 characters which is in the region of consideration for a split as per WP:SIZESPLIT, depending of course whether credit lists are included in 'readable prose'. In regard to notability, I don't think there is an issue as she has had prominent, if not starring roles, in several internationally distributed and acclaimed productions. I don't think that the project is improved by remerging the filmography and am still of the opinion that the split should stand Poltair (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The actress has an enormous list of television credits. Slobberdan (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Actress isn't notable enough on her own" I don't think is relevant to this discussion, as she already has her own page which is not disputed. Slobberdan (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'd appreciate if you would read my reply to Poltair above ser! (let's discuss it). 23:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the opening comment of "Actress isn't notable enough on her own", I was expecting to see a one-line stub about her, but that's not the case. Seems a pefect example of WP:SPLIT to have a stand-alone list. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timbe[edit]

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

Delete - A member of a Serbian rap group Bad Copy, which has no potential for a page only about him. Googling his name you can not find any references about him, instead when you go into news section, football related topics popup, even when going next page everything is only about football. When typing Timbe rapper, it's the same thing, nothing, no references. Googling his second alias "Bdat Dzutim", in the news section, there is only three sites and that's literally it. He is a non-notable rapper. PolePoz (talk) 23:12, 7 July 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 July 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the group is notable, he is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 124.123.182.61 (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lauryn McClain[edit]

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

Significant refbombing. Click a few cited links and you'd find it difficult to spot her mention. Most of the citations talk about her sister China. Miserably fails WP:GNG if you search her name. Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR because the roles she got were not significant. - Harsh (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harsh 2580: I disagree. She had lead roles in major productions like Haunt, which had a tiny budget yet got $2.4 million at the box office, it was generally critically acclaimed, and it ranked the #1 most watched movie premiere of 2019 on Shudder. She was also the lead role Janelle in the YouTube Red series Step Up: High Water, and most to all episodes have received at least a million views on YouTube, with many episodes reaching 20, 30, 40, or even 50+ million views. Both Lauryn and the series have gotten even more interest the past two days following the death of Naya Rivera, and after Lauryn spoke a little with People Magazine about sharing a post of Rivera on her Instagram. She also voiced Freddie Facilier in the second season of the Disney Channel television series Descendants: Wicked World which was a very popular series on Disney Channel. Factfanatic1 (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, the article looks like an obvious keep, but take a minute to check some citations at random, and they are worthless. The sources are generally not reliable, not independent, or not relevant. At best the sources discuss something she is part of, but say little, if anything about her specifically. There might be some good sources in there, but the REFBOMBING has made it impossible to find them. Given all of her credits, there should be ample coverage of her. The inclusion of junk sources defeats the entire purpose of providing sources. If we want to see junk sources, we can go to google, it has lots. The idea of citing sources, is so that we don't have to sift through all the garbage to get to the good stuff. Can you identify a *single* quality, independent, reliable, third party source that talks substantially about this specific person. --Rob (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shellwood and Harsh 2580: [4] This link also backs up the fact that she's notable in her own right. Around the time that Step Up: High Water, Haunt, and Descendants: Wicked World, all of which she had lead roles in, her Wikipedia page surged in popularity. There's also been quite a good amount of views since this page was officially created in the last few days. Factfanatic1 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree she is very popular. She has well over half a million social media followers. However, what we need is for independent reliable sources to write substantially about her specifically. --Rob (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thivierr, correct! she is very popular & since popularity isn’t synonymous with notability that doesn’t count for much. Also you are very much correct what we need is in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources which is lacking here. Celestina007 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Harsh 2580’s analysis, I can’t also seem to observe in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources that substantiates nor proves notability. Hence doesn’t satisfy our general notability criteria. Furthermore the ref bombing is a common tactic usually utilized by UPE editors. Celestina007 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons I and others say above. A single good source would make me happily switch. --Rob (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrawn. Kvng is right, there are too many reliable sources, ZDNet is permissible niche media. (non-admin closure) Ysangkok (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tonido[edit]

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

Notability not established for file-syncing software only covered in niche media like LifeHacker and Linux magazines Ysangkok (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ysangkok I'm not sure what you mean by "niche media". There seem to be reliable sources here. Electronic Design (magazine) is a longstanding trade publication. ZDNet is listed as reliable. Why would a Linux magazine be unreliable? ~Kvng (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5'd it, created by LTA. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvi (tribe)[edit]

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

This article is pretty much artificial, claiming there are Sunni Alevis. Also the user is putting Turkic peoples category every time. Such thing doesn't exist. Source 2, 3, 4 and 5 may show like such people (?) is actual, but all these texts are copy pastes from other articles mainly Alevi. Especially the infobox looks ridiculous. It should be deleted, pure original research. Beshogur (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many Alvis, who were reverted to Sunniism please don't contest this speedy deletion. Linguafocus (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Was created by a now banned sock of a long term abuser. Gotitbro (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isolate (puzzle)[edit]

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

I couldn't find evidence that this is as notable as this unreferenced page claims. Boleyn (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could not find any references in Google news search — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoala (talk • contribs) 23:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, non-notable puzzle. SportingFlyer T·C 18:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete daily mail puzzle sounds like it should have something, but I couldn't find sources for this one. Jontesta (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Logic puzzle As another WP:ATD we could create a list of Logic Based puzzles. We also have another potential target of Logic maze. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sampoorna Rath[edit]

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

Just being a Fan of sports and also not having wp:sigcov won't make the subject enough notable to have a stand alone article. Dtt1^Talk 16:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 16:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 16:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A person with a collection is not notable, unless either the collection or the person is significant for some other reason. That doesn't seem to be the case here.—ShelfSkewed Talk 22:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - owning a collection with 200 units is a run of the mill hobbyist. My ex-landlord has that many prints. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Internet Chess Club. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Computer Chess Tournament[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY as a standalone article. It does not have the level of significance or coverage required. An WP:ATD is a merge/redirect to Internet Chess Club, but this was opposed in the past (see Talk:Internet Computer Chess Tournament. Boleyn (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A 10-year-old merge discussion about what looks to be a one-off on someone else's server? I don't see any sources of interest in Google. Redirect and/or merge as appropriate. --Izno (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually tried to AfD this without seeing that it had already been AfD'd. Before search was empty in terms of GNG. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internet Chess Club: Per nominator. Barely found anything about the tournament. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant reliable coverage to be found. Current content is poorly sourced and outdated, so shouldn't be merged. Not significant enough to warrant a mention at the main article, so shouldn't be redirected. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above as useful search term, despite what the talk page says. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 04:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internet Chess Club. Seems a sensible target. P-K3 (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The search term seems perfectly plausible as a WP:ATD. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. A number of editors assert that this topic is notable, and some inline citations to weak-ish sources have been added during this AfD, but the rough consensus of experienced editors is that these aren't sufficient to retain this content in the mainspace. In deference to those who want to keep this around in some form, I'm going to move it to draftspace for incubation until it's properly sourced. You can find it here.—S Marshall T/C 13:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atisuto[edit]

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

References don't seem to convey notability— LinkedIn profiles, trivial mentions, etc. Substantive discussion in reliable independent published sources looks like it is [still] lacking ( article was already deleted once). A loose necktie (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the sources more thoroughly, you'll see that most of them are very reliable secondary sources in Hebrew (Haaretz, Yisrael Hayom, Mako, etc.), and a single reliable news source in English. Ta,jhk (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable music production company. Celestina007 (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to delete - I disagree with the non-notable claim. I have no relation to this company or the people working in it, but it is a fact that Atisuto DJs are the most influential DJs in Israel; they actually could change the music style that will be played in public and private events in Israel (live concerts, festivals, weddings, etc.). In addition, they are the focus of multiple online articles in Hebrew, which were published in reliable and well-known Israeli news websites, such as Haaretz, Yisrael Hayom and Mako (also mentioned in a few reliable sources in English). --Ta,jhk (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That they couldChange the musical style in Israel, an opinion based on your personal knowledge, is not a reason to keep. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the decision of deleting the article. I read and understand Hebrew fluently and from the different sources given, it is well broadcasted that Atisuto is a notable music company in Israel and that they contribute not a little to the the musical style in Israel. According to some international reliable sources, they are notable also abroad and not only in Israel. Thus, their notability and influence is not deduced from a personal knowledge but come from reliable sources.Mamscarlett123 (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. One of the two keep votes above is from an account with two edits in mainspace that I am guessing was specifically created to comment at this AfD. so should be discounted. Number 5 7 11:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are two separate discussions here. One is personal against the users who argued not to delete the article, while the other focuses on notability. Referring to notability, it is important to take into consideration that some of the DJs listed in Atisuto are probably notable for themselves (I have read their interviews to leading news websites and it seems they are pretty famous in Israel, the United States and some countries in South America). Now, if an editor would create a separate Wikipedia article for each one of them, I would suggest merging them into a single article as they are part of a group. But this is exactly what happened in this case and that is why I vote to keep the article. Whitefact (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everest Group[edit]

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

This page does not meet WP:N based on the sources on the page and online. Too many WP:PRIMARY sources are being used on the page currently. Seems like it was written by someone at the company. Less notable than other management consulting firms without pages like [[5]]. Adelesolis (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Adelesolis (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero out of 5 list sources are independent. Promotional language. Written by single-use account (mostly). No assertion of notability. --Lockley (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Devokewater @ 16:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any reliable sources to indicate notability. Essentially a directory listing.--Kinu ^t/_c 22:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kinu ^t/_c 03:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AUTOECO[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/AUTOECO

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

No notability whatsoever. A WP:BEFORE garnered lots of hits for a vacuum, but didn't show anything in the way of RS for this organization/event. Kbabej (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like it was a one-time event in 2007. No substantial coverage found. Renata (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I added a brief review of the autumn 2007 event and a preview of another event in spring 2008 can also be found (link) but unless someone can identify more detailed coverage I don't think there is enough to meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA. AllyD (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One-off event, not notable as minimum coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as improved. BD2412 T 02:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Kumar Berry[edit]

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

Consensus has beenSingle award at the second highest level is not sufficient--see WP:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide The sources for this one are particularly week DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails #1 of WP:SOLDIER and scant references given for #2, in any event WP:SOLDIER is just a presumption of notability and he fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just comprehensively showed that an Indian brigadier with an MVC (Narinder Singh Sandhu) met the GNG (brigadiers are line-ball for SOLDIER, so it isn't as clear-cut as you suggest), and many of the same reliable sources used to expand Sandhu will no doubt be able to be used to expand this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Each has to meet his own WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a brigadier, very clearly meets WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As I keep saying, WP:SOLDIER is just a presumption of notability, they still have to satisfy WP:GNG and he doesn't Mztourist (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. It's a presumption of notability! I can't honestly recall any officer of this rank ever being deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - To quote from WP:SOLDIER "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: ..." , so even if they meet one of the 6 heads, if they don't have WP:SIGCOV, they don't meet WP:GNG. He doesn't have SIGCOV, so fails and should be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now reliably sourced the entire article. He clearly meets the GNG and this should be closed as keep. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Brigadier" should meet WP:NSOLDIER#2, plus there is the Mahavir Chakra (though not enough for #1), article is well-written, likely satisfies WP:GNG outright. To the discussion, I have to add—The purpose of presumption of notability is to keep and let develop articles on subjects showing enough merit to allow us to presume that they would surely meet WP:GNG when we finally finish collating all the sources, online and offline. If we deleted articles that didn't meet GNG because SNGs only provide for presumption, there would be no point in having the SNGs in the first place. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apna Ghar (1960 film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to IMDb (not WP:RS) since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up the plot, which the article lacks, and that was the best I could find. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find any reviews for this film.sinbce its very old film it will be very dificult to find about this movie i foukd few references - ^[1] ^[2] Playlikeastar (Playlikeastar) 15:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Playlikeastar: Those two citations turned up in my BEFORE search. They contain nothing of any value. Narky Blert (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need to stop allowing articles on films that do not even come close to meeting notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: This is a very old classic Hindi movie released in the year 1960 citation is very challenging if we remove this, People will not know that there is a movie like this exist and also details of the move will be lost, so let's think before deleting. please think and take action accordingly Playlikeastar (Playlikeastar) 19:11, 16 July 2020(UTC)

Delete per nom Spiderone 09:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this film found online, and {ping|playlikeastar)) While it may be challenging to find citations, this article does nothing more than reiterate what it already on IMDB. Wikipedia is not, and should not, be a mirror for IMDB. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aulad Ki Khatir[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to IMDb (not WP:RS) since creation in 2016, and rightly tagged as a ((stub)). A WP:BEFORE search turned up the cast list, but nothing in-depth. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject lacks any indepth sourcing that would show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this film found online. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

26 January (film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film sourced only to IMDb (non-WP:RS) since 2016 and with no plot. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing more than a handful of listings sites. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles should not be able to survive just 4 days only sourced to IMDb, let alone 4 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this film found online. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Winchmore Hill#Schools. If sourcing improves let me know Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keble School[edit]

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

I can find very little coverage of this preparatory school. It takes children aged 4-13 so is not a secondary school, which would be presumed notable under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I have added two references. Apart from that I can only find a reference in the biography of a surgeon who does not have a Wiki article [6], and an article about the conviction of a teacher at the school [7]. It is already listed in its locality article, Winchmore Hill. Note for WP:BEFORE - there are two other similarly named schools, John Keble Primary School and Thomas Keble School. Although the article for this one is named Keble School, it seems more often to be called Keble Preparatory School or Keble Prep. Tacyarg (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the consensus is not to keep this article, it should be redirected to Winchmore Hill#Schools. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly does not meet the level of notability standards required for schools below the fully secondary level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am currently researching the history of this school and they are currently publishing a history of school including notable pupils 2 of which are Norris McWhirter and Ross McWhirter prior to attendance of Marlborough College at 13. 20:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.19.52 (talk)
Comment One of the former headmistress' is SYLVIA SWINBURNE MBE (1907-1991)[8] who is one of the founding members of the Women’s Cricket Association Women's Cricket Association and president in 1971 when she introduced the first womens world cup of cricket [9]. Who oddly doesn't have an entry but probably should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.19.52 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Steven Martini. And then y'all can have an edit war there or whatever. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Spaceship Martini[edit]

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

NN garage band, no reliable sources giving the substantial coverage to the band, as the GNG requires. Notability tagged for over a decade. Article deprodded with the rationale that a redirect or merge was more appropriate; the deprodder promptly then reverted the redirect. Ravenswing 15:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steven Martini, the band's most notable member. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Steven Martini, there is useful cited content here that can be used to improve Steven Martini. ~Kvng (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is NO cited content, as it happens. So I'll perhaps ask you again: what content, sourced to a reliable source, do you claim exists? Ravenswing 16:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you removed it. ~Kvng (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I gather you never actually looked at those sources. Not a single one of them mentioned the subject -- not even as a namedrop -- and not a single one of those assertions were supported by the sources cited. So I'll ask you again a third time: what content, sourced to a reliable source, about the subject of this article, do you claim exists? Ravenswing 00:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the first of the references that were removed, from the New York Times, does mention the band at the end of the third paragraph. It's still not enough to persuade me that the page should be kept, though. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone is arguing that the article should be kept. The discussion is merge vs. redirect. Steven Martini or the Martini brothers is mentioned in all the deleted sources and so supports (former) material from this article that could be merged to Steven Martini. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer - I agree with you that Steven Martini is a sensible target for a merge & redirect. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That Steven Martini or his brother is mentioned in all the sources is completely irrelevant; his own article is not up for deletion. As far as redirect goes, I agree with that, since I did the redirect in the first place. As far as merging goes ... there is NOTHING TO MERGE. The only information shown to exist is that Steven Martini fronts this garage band. That information is already in Martini's article. Information liable to merge presupposes that such information is reliably sourced. There is no such information, you've been asked several times over to provide some, and each and every time you have refused to do so. An editor of your longevity has to be aware that the onus on sourcing is on the editor wishing to retain such material. Your continuing to litigate this is starting to verge on bad faith. Ravenswing 15:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not enjoying this either. Why don't we just close this as redirect and I'll make some improvements to Steven Martini and we'll have an edit war there or whatever. ~Kvng (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Rai[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NPOL. Apart from this, no significant press coverage for local politician. Out of two news reports one mentions of being sacked from a position and the other is a about a road accident ~ Amkgp 💬 15:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ' Fails WP:NPOL, Never been elected and fails WP:GNG too. --- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 16:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 16:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, non notable. Nika2020 (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:NPOL. Non-notable regional politician. LefcentrerightDiscuss 20:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all. -Hatchens (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article expanded. Passes WP:GNG, notably a prominent figure appearing in national media (see https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=361839057959978 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqC2mMXr_Yg ), several news pieces with him as the article subject in multiple national media (see the article, for example his removal as SP spokesperson was reported as news story by major outlets, his return to the position was reported as a news story as well, his 2018 car accident was reported in multiple media as well, etc.). Possibly there is also possibility to expand on his corporate role, as he runs a number of educational institutions. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still the person fails WP:NPOL, corporate role and running education institutions are all self promotion stuff does not make the person notable. In India most prominent politicians from district level holds such things. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how notability works. WP:NPOL indicates some criteria that can be used to establish notability, but this is not exclusive. There is no requirement that politicians have to comply with point 1 of WP:NPOL, WP:GNG can be enough. There is no automatic requirement to delete article on people that ran for office and didn't get elected. In this case we have an individual who frequently appears in national media and who's goings and doings become national news stories in themselves. And one could even argue that the office of national secretary of Samajwadi Party in itself would qualify for notability, considering that Samajwadi Party is one of the largest political parties in the world. SP pulled 15.6 million votes in the 2019 Indian general election, which is more than the German CDU in 2017. --Soman (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Facebook nor YouTube are reliable sources, sorry Spiderone 22:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that, and neither Facebook nor YouTube are used as sources for the article in any way. Nevertheless, for the sake of the debate on notability within the AfD itself, it is not irrelevant to demonstrate that the article subject is a frequent news show guest/commentator. --Soman (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Soman, the subjects lack WP:SIGCOV. Period! Kindly read this once, WP:Bludgeon. -Hatchens (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that comment misses the mark: 1) Considering examples like [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], you can't say that the article subject lacks WP:SIGCOV. 2) WP:Bludgeon is not relevant as a response to my comment. I'm replying to comments to my comment, that's hardly disrupting the AfD process. --Soman (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and sources provided by user Soman above do not satisfy WP:GNG. Out of all five sources, #1, #2, and #4 discuss the same story "Rajiv Rai, close aide of Akhilesh Yadav, was sacked as party's national secretary on Sunday." #5 an anouncment that "he was again appointed as the party's national secretary and spokesperson" and #2 he met an road accident what else? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ GSS ^💬 06:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 04:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John-Anthony Cooney[edit]

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

I found no coverage definitively about this person, other than his personal website. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE, the only coverage I could find under any given variation of his name was an obituary of a different John-Anthony Cooney. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly prestigious about the La Merde d'Or , it doesn't have an available Wikipedia entry, and it certainly doesn't provide notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has got to be a hoax, surely? La Merde d'Or indeed. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although I did chuckle. Caro7200 (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, can't find anything that suggests he's notable --Devokewater @ 17:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete search finds nothing, although I did not search very hard. La Merde d'Or made me thing of Artist's Shit, but Artist's Shit (done in 1961) is of course old shit in comparison to this newer item.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear hoax. "La Merde D'Or" quite literally meaning "the golden shite" in French and the 'real name' he's given being a clearly made up name suggests this has got to be a joke article. It seems to have stood for nearly 12 years now, so could be directed towards the 'list of hoaxes on Wikipedia' page after deletion? ser! (let's discuss it). 17:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser!: Do you mean the article and the web site that is linked to in the external links are both fake? I read the article as promotional use of Wikipedia, although I guess the web site could be faked too.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: I had assumed it was a hoax rather than promotional given the general jokey nature of the page, but now that you say it, it could honestly be either! Worth noting you can easily make a website to fake a person's existence, which seems plausible given that's the singular bit of coverage we can find of the subject. ser! (let's discuss it). 17:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's of course possible to fake the web site but that would be a lot of work in this case as you would have to fake all those images too.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's art art and performance art... Caro7200 (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a hoax. Vexations (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we stopped having articles only sourced to the subject of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that a junk article like this has existed for over 11 years is very disturbing. The creator made several edits but all between 22 Dec. 2008 and 30 January 2009. He created at least two more articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Things get worse, there used to be the "official" Japanese website and an "uunofficial" fansite listed. The current version is not as extreme as one that existed in 2014. Why the editor then just removed some of the puffery instead of questioning the very article is hard to say. I have even at times seen cases where editors had removed every source but IMDb. If you think no source but IMDb is any good, just nominate the article for deletion. This may indicate nominating for deletion is too convoluted a process, and maybe also too easy to expose one to attacks from hard core preservationist radicals. On the other hand creating articles is way to easy. You can do itwith 1 edit. Deleting takes at least 3 edits, and needs anothers approval, and you often have to do more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Back in 2012 the article had a claim added that he had been entered in the Guiness Book of World Records with this quote "and his ability to eat an entire toblerone bar in 10 seconds, a feat which has earned him a place in the Guinness Book of Records. " There was also at one point a claim that he had had a role in the "hit film" The Clown that Got Eaten By a Dinosaur. I am beginning to wonder how these bogus claims were removed but no one was asking why we had this article with no reliable sources. As I have said before, we really need to start making all new articles go through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert, we have the rather severely backlogged WP:NPP already. Vexations (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is exactly why we need all new articles to be proactively approved for creation, not approved after the fact, since after the fact monotiring is clearly failing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Johnpacklambert, NPP didn't exist when the article was created in 2008. The only editor with New page reviewers rights was the editor who nominated it for deletion. After the fact monitoring is working. There is no need to discredit their good work. Vexations (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Over 11 years of having a hoax sit around is way too long. Monitoring after the fact is not working is we have hoax articles exist for that long.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article subject isn't a hoax: the person appears to exist. Some of the facts seem to have been made up though, in a sort of juvenile humour way.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedway, California[edit]

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

Another spot sourced only from Durham, the location of which (as recorded in the article) is nonsense: the NP simply didn't run through this area. There is in fact a Silver Dollar Speedway in the Chico area, sitting in the middle of the Silver Dollar Fairgrounds, and in the southern part of town there is a Speedway Avenue, which is where the Speedway subdivision discussed in this application lies. But we're talking a total of eight lots on one cul-de-sac, and Speedway Ave. doesn't run all the way to the railroad now, and there's every reason to believe that it never did. Gudde doesn't mention the spot, and I can't find anyone who does, although it must be said that searching is heavily hampered by false hits. If there was a spot on the tracks named Speedway at some point, there's just no way it passes notability when it only shows up in a single book. The claim that it was a notable settlement fails verification in a big way. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per WP:GNG. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 16:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:NPLACE: "Cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence can be verified through a reliable source." P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but was this even a village? There is no reliable source to show that. This probably wasn't a village and so is measured against WP:GNG per WP:GEOLAND. Note: this has been edited once. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 20:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete convinced per nom. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this is a notable populated place, negligently mass-created. Reywas92^Talk 23:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:GEOLAND. In order to even consider keeping this, we would need to verify that Durham (or any other source) lists this as a "former settlement", since this type of label is often added erroneously to our articles. –dlthewave ☎ 18:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that it is a city or village, so no presumption that it is notable. Clearly does not meet basic wiki notability criteria. Glendoremus (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Bagley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable amateur sportsman - as per WP:CUENOT and WP:NSPORT, being ranked 270th and never making it past the pre-qualifying rounds is not enough to make his professional career notable - as for his amateur career, he has had some success...competing as an amateur, on an amateur tour, in amateur events featuring ex-professional players - a tour from which professionals are excluded. If we keep Jonathan Bagley, if we believe competing on the World Seniors Tour is enough to make him notable, we must have articles for every player who competes on that tour and indeed every other player whose only achievements have been at amateur level. We either do that or we stick by the guidelines we currently have in place, under which there is clearly no place here for an article for Jonathan Bagley. Montgomery15 (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Montgomery15 (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. There's no "sticking to guidelines" here, as there is enough press about the player, specifically because of the recent quality on the World Seniors Tour. [15], [16], [17], [18] - plus the qualifying for the World Snooker Championship last year. I'm not saying we should create articles on all amateur players, but we also shouldn't be afraid to create them on players who get significant coverage. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as per WP:GNG, "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article . This is that in-depth discussion, which I note is being had for the second time - not because the article was nominated for deletion once, but that it was deleted once , as a result of that first discussion, and subsequently resurrected by yourself. What right you have to contradict the consensus that was reached in that discussion is not known to me or, I suspect, anybody else.
When pressed for reasons as to why it should stay after all, you've come up with two sources that mention the subject in detail, and two that mention him briefly, and passed those off as significant coverage. The sources are news articles on the fan-run websites SnookerHub and SnookerHQ; here, one member of WikiProject Snooker, while suggesting we cast out some fan-run websites such as CueTracker, at the same time endorses others such as SnookerHub and SnookerHQ. Who is that member? Lee Vilenski, of course.
In the previous discussion, you used as your reason for keeping the article the fact that he had once qualified for the professional tour, and that as he had competed as a professional, he was notable. You know snooker, I'm sure, so you should be aware that in 1991, when Bagley turned professional, there was no qualification process; you or I could have paid our membership fees to the sport's governing body, and we would have been professionals, competing in professional events. Hundreds of people did just this, and Bagley was among them. If we say Bagley is noteworthy enough simply as a former professional, then again, we are setting a precedent: any player who has ever competed on the World Snooker Tour, regardless of their achievements or for how long they played, would be notable.
We would then be writing articles on several hundred people who never even made it past the pre-qualifying rounds (let alone the qualifying rounds) of any tournament they ever played in - people just like Jonathan Bagley.
I'm sure we can all see how ridiculous that would be. Simply participating in professional events, then, is hardly sufficient to make one notable.

Jonathan Bagley is one of hundreds of former professional snooker players; my argument is that two good performances in two amateur events two years ago, whatever coverage they received in the microcosm-world of avid snooker fans like ourselves, do not justify an article about him on Wikipedia. Montgomery15 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think we should just allow coverage only in sport specific sites to propel us to create an article. There is no broad coverage, and no significant coverage outside of sport-psecific websites, and no reason to overturn the last deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning delete but I'd like to see some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 16:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The arguments of the Nom are compelling as are those of JPL. A deleted and recreated article should provide evidence for inclusion above the reasoning it was deleted in the first place, that would certainly include significant coverage in independent sources. I am not a "snooker fan" or expert and the discussion above seems to involve two that are more knowledgeable on the subject. The Nom's comments seem to indicate that the criteria of the WIkiProject indicate the subject does not reach the inclusion criteria. The rebuttal indicates less reliance on a WikiProjects criteria. Looking at List of snooker players, that states "This is a list of notable amateur and professional snooker players, past and present.", of which many are contestable, there does appear to be a more common theme that many on the list have placed high in rankings or won national or international tournaments. Since almost all sources are industry specific there has to be some allowances but I am not convinced that a need to list all snooker players (amateur or professional) should extend to "Last 144". -- Otr500 (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the coverage of him appears to be what I would consider routine sports reporting. He was never world ranked and his best performance in open competition was making the final 262 at the Welsh Open in 1992. He did qualify for the 2019 world championships, where he lost his first match, by being the highest ranked amateur on the senior tour, but that doesn't seem sufficient to grant automatic WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desta Mart[edit]

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

Not seeing much in-depth coverage for this e-commerce site. I found some of the usual product announcement articles and non-reliable sources. The only decent source is the Business Line article cited twice in the article and even that is just a brief report of this portal. M4DU7 (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only trivial coverage. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 21:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the portal. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern psychotherapy[edit]

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

This term is insufficiently notable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. There are various psychotherapies that are sometimes called "postmodern" but each such psychotherapy (e.g. narrative therapy) has its own Wikipedia article. There is no manual of "postmodern psychotherapy" and no association of "postmodern psychotherapists". "Postmodern psychotherapy" is a general umbrella term that can be mentioned in the main Psychotherapy article (where there is already a Postmodernist section), but this article should be deleted. Redirecting to Psychotherapy § Postmodernist would also be acceptable. Biogeographist (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:44, 6 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 has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create

Comment: But note that a redirect, as suggested in the nomination, is an appropriate alternative to soft deletion. Biogeographist (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again, noting above comment, to what target should this be redirected to? Psychotherapy? Happy for early closure by another editor
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 14:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Postmodern" is in most contexts a totally vague term. There are too many possible meanings--as mentioned there is nothing specific to redirect to. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree about the vagueness of "postmodern" as noted above. As noted in the nomination, "postmodern psychotherapy" is used as a general (and vague) umbrella term but is not suitable for a separate article. Psychotherapy § Postmodernist would be an appropriate redirect target, as also noted in the nomination, but I have no preference between deleting and redirecting. Biogeographist (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG, WP:VAGUE, WP:NOTESSAY, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:OR. This does not define the term, nor even its leading scholars. It appears to be an essay posted here, filled with vague wording. In 2008 we would have excused that; in 2020 it's essentially spam. We have never published original research, and everybody knows that. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Calling three to six sentences an "essay", as Bearian did above, is too generous. More like a poem. Though calling it an essay reminds me of the Postmodernism Generator. Biogeographist (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brainworx[edit]

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

I'm failing to see how this passes WP:CORP. Of the three references, two are about the products, not the corporation. The third looks very like consolidated press releases. Fiddle Faddle 19:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added some independent review refs of their products. Seem pretty notable in their field, but not sure if they wp:gng.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even with the additional product reviews, there's no evidence that the organisation itself passes WP:CORPDEPTH. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative Users Group[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this met WP:ORG or WP:GNG. An WP:ATD is to redirect, or merge and redirect, to Innovative Interfaces.

This article has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years, so I hope we can now find a resolution, one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic is already covered at Innovative Interfaces and I don’t see anything to indicate that this UG is notable in itself. Mccapra (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only self published sources. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Animal Rights Coalition[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was started by a sockpuppeting single-purpose account and is now the focus of another SPA who appears to be connected to the group. Google finds 111 unique results. There is some referenciness in the form of a couple of local news stories that mention the group, but most of the sources that were in the article did not mention them. Other than a few namechecks, Google shows no substantive reliable sources, and (per WP:GNG) I am unable to trace a single reliable independent source that is actually about this group, rather than simply mentioning them. Guy (help!) 10:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable organisation which doesn't meet GNG; also cannot find independent, reliable sources. The sources currently given in the article don't go beyond a trivial mention, with one or two quotes from the organisation in relation to a different matter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are multiple independent articles which reference the organisation, beyond a trivial mention. The guidelines are clear that it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I appreciate that some of the references are not up to standard, and I will edit accordingly, but I do not think deletion is appropriate.Hufflife (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just went through all of the citations to see what was there. MOST of the citations do not mention SARC at all and only exist to support the "stories" in the wiki article. Those citations that do mention SARC are mostly a statement by a SARC person saying "we are opposed to somethingerother" (primary source, and not very substantive). There is at least one citation which says the group actually DID something ("The Southern Animal Rights Coalition (Sarc) organises a weekly picket of his shop, Furry Friends, in The Square, Barnham, every Sunday. The group has also distributed leaflets to every household in Barnham.") but even that is unremarkable and alone wouldn't get media attention. If you trim out all the content supported solely by primary sources (SARC said they did it, or SARC's website) and everything where SARC was merely mentioned, you wouldn't have much left of the article. And for a 13-year old wiki article to be that full of fluff and no substance, that tells me that SARC was never notable in the GNG sense. That's the problem with "movements" (ideas) that try so hard not to be "organizations" (IRL people) so they can't be caught and stopped, that the only 'press' they get is when they proclaim "That was us; we did that act." But no one can verify it because there were no witnesses, and no human was willing to come forward to say "I did that." It's only when someone gets arrested and they claim association with such a group that the press can say "Oh, GroupX did that!" and hence they get some notability. Seems like SARC falls into that category. Their website was last active in 2010. I'd say defunct, but also non-notable. Normal Op (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Earlier today I was working on List of animal rights groups and was shocked to see the duplication of material because multiple groups claimed to be the cause of ProjectXYZ that resulted in some shared goal (amongst animal rights) being accomplished. So the articles of each and every group or movement that had an opinion on ProjectXYZ would get the same coverage in their wiki article as if they were the one who accomplished the goal and this was one of their trophies. I think I read that "goat story" about five times today! This area of Wikipedia needs a bunch of cleanup work. Normal Op (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siaram Dave[edit]

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

Recently created article about Gujarati humorist and folk singer. He is popular in Gujarat, but I could't find any online sources which can establish notability. The current article contains only two sources which are not reliable. Please note that the article title is misspelled. The real name of the subject is 'Sairam Dave'. Gazal world (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article says he is "famous" and "international", but those words are only found in his own self-created promotional sites. He is neither famous nor international; under both Siaram Dave and Sairam Dave, the only other sources found are about performances in his local area, plus the usual streaming and social media sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like another promotional article, there is otherwise some limited coverage of the person but not sufficient for notability. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another promotional article about a non-notable person. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Characters of Halo#Avery Johnson. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Johnson (Halo)[edit]

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

There is literally nothing that indicates that Johnson merited a spin-off article from Characters of Halo. He remains a non-notable character on his own, similar to other minor characters like Captain Keyes, and fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Characters of Halo#Avery Johnson where there's already a character biography. Doesn't need to be spun out of the list. Hog Farm _Bacon 13:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, not seeing how he passes NFICTION to warrant a standalone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as not independently notable outside of Halo to warrant a separate article. I don't like parentheticals as redirects, but I could somewhat see this one. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ~ Amkgp 💬 18:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Perdue[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG independent of company. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect or just redirect to Perdue Farms. Boleyn (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:BEFORE applies. As a founder of a major food producer who changed the industry, his management has been documented extensively in business texts for Organizational structure and strategy.This sample satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:BIO:

[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] page 9

Toddst1 (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1 You should add those sources to the article. Papaursa (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Toddst1's comment. = paul2520 💬 12:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that the sources found by Toddst1 are enough to show notability. Before that, I was going to suggest a redirect/merge to the Perdue Farms article. Papaursa (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Moved to draft. Cross space redirect deleted CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Collins[edit]

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

Unelected politician. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Candidates. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back to Draft, since it shouldn't have been made live in the first place. Support deleting the redirect it left behind. --eduardog3000 (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juno Healthcare Staffing[edit]

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

insufficient evidence for notability . Placement on these very unselective promotional is not sufficient to meet WP:NCORP: It needs references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements DGG ( talk ) 12:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Corp article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. Refs provided are incidental mentions in low quality sources, and a search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find sufficient secondary sources to prove notability Suonii180 (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 16:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Nika2020 (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources don't indicate a notable company. --Lockley (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is keep, and is notable after all. (non-admin closure) Guitarist28 (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masini Situ-Kumbanga[edit]

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

This article is about a person that ran in the olympics. This is the only sentence, and is not notable. Guitarist28 (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOLY. The one sentence establishes the notability of the subject. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Lugnuts. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Open Championship[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Almost all the content is WP:Original Research, violating WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. None of the pertinent detail (course setup, qualification criteria, etc.) can be verified because nothing has been announced by The R&A other than the dates and venue. Most has been copied directly from 2020 Open Championship on the assumption that they will be carried over – it should be noted that the only verifiable content is in that article and there is currently a discussion about moving it to this title (they are both the 149th Open). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- WP:TOOSOON. This is a WP:CRYSTAL. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 16:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per WP:TOOSOON. Normally a year out I might be sympathetic to have this as an article, but at the moment the shape of sport in the UK in 12 months time cannot be predicted. Dunarc (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon, WP:SNOW, and WP:OUTCOMES. We have recently deleted lots of articles about upcoming proposed events in 2021-2023. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 action taken. The previous AfD's "merge" outcome still stands, and anybody can carry the merger out, then redirect the article to the merge target. Sandstein 08:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Senedd on television[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was nominated for a merge and a merge was agreed. However, it has still not been deleted even though some of the content has been moved and there is very little content left on this page. Elshad (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Elshad (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close There's no need for this AFD to be open, the other was already closed as merge and content will be merged in due time, with this left as a redirect. If all content worth merging has already been merged, then it can be redirected. Not the place for AFD either way. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Nares[edit]

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

He sounds like an interesting and successful man, but I couldn't establish that he is notable separate from Social and Enterprise Development Innovations. It is probalby worth noting that these two articles were both started by the same WP:SPI and it reads as if written to promote.

After more than 11 years in CAT:NN, hopefully we can get this resolved. An WP:ATD is merge and redirtect, or just redirect, to Social and Enterprise Development Innovations. Boleyn (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. I'm not convinced that the proposed merge target is notable either. Boleyn, what are your feelings about PRODDING Social and Enterprise Development Innovations? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:Dom Kaos, when opening this, I looked at that target and came to the same conclusion, that it may well also be non-notable. Looking it over again, it is proddable. Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, badly written PR --Devokewater @ 20:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Consensus, such as it is, agrees that this should not be kept as it is. The draftification allows repurposing the content as proposed by Peterkingirron if editors so desire. Sandstein 18:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vlastos[edit]

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

A hopeless mess of an article trying to link disparate people with the same surname, or similar surnames, across several centuries back to ancient Rome and Greece. While the people mentioned existed, the claim that they are related is entirely unsubstantiated, almost throughout the article. This is beyond salvaging as it stands, and should better be deleted and replaced by a dab page on the surname. Constantine ✍ 18:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split -- I agree that the article cannot survive in its present form. However, it contains material that is capable of becoming free-standing articles on Siphis Vlasto (a rebel leader) and Nicholas Vlasto, an early printer. The first of these is preceded by a rambling section on Venetian rule in Crete, which does not actually refer to the family and should be removed. Having extracted these, there will not be much left. However we do have list articles on people sharing a surname. The remains might be cut down to an article Vlasto (surname). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stini[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. A notability tag has been placed again, so still doubt. No coverage. No fans. Failure to launch. scope_creep^Talk 11:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete considering the last discussion on this musician including a keep vote trying to convince us a press release and an interview with her were enough to pass GNG, it is very clear she does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: falls far short of WP:NMUSICIAN and I can't find any significant coverage. At best, a case of WP:TOOSOON. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Beer Star[edit]

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

Exists, but doesn't have the coverage or significance to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. This and the other language articles on it seem to have been written for promotion. Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been running for 16 years now and seems to be reasonably substantial. There's coverage to be found such as this. The worst case would be to consolidate into a page such as list of food and drink awards#Beer_awards per WP:ATD-M. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 08:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article cites no third-party coverage even after 3 weeks of AfD. Fails WP:GNG. Sandstein 08:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Inch Hero[edit]

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

Not notable. Couldn’t find any significant coverage about this film anywhere. Dronebogus (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found 2 reviews, [[23]], and [[24]]. Seems notable enough for a direct-to-DVD feature. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 08:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like this lacks the notability required to pass WP:NFILM. Although two sources were provided in this AfD both seem to be blogs. Which aren't reliable or usable as a way to establish notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article stands notable with WP:RS (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janapriya Multiple Campus[edit]

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

Self published sources. Lack of independent reliable resources. fails WP:RS DMySon 16:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with improvement. The original content is just copy paste. I tried to improve it. Seems the campus is notable in country level (based on Nepali news webstes). nirmal (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resources are self published and not independent reliable of the subject. Need secondary reliable resources to pass notability criteria.DMySon 11:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a book citation, that should do it in the interim. Second step would be to copy edit it, I'll do it in a bit. Please confirm if that solves the issue of deletion. This institution is authentic and is a notable place in Pokhara. Ramnam (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The book resource added by you does not have any college description. It is not enough to justify college notability.DMySon 05:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- This appears to be one of the public campuses of Tribhuvan University which by nature are (almost) always notable. I was half-tempted to invoke WP:TNT anyway, except it's a non-profit community institution and the article was created by an editor who is very much learning (i.e. not SPA/PAID). So, I think we should keep and allow it to be developed. I will try and clean up. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! In a developing country, there's always a dearth of good primary sources, or no sources at all and enthusiastic Wikipedians might not have the dexterity in copy writing or proficiency in the English language. Personally, I'm glad someone took the time to create this page and document a piece of Nepal.Ramnam (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added independent reliable press coverage of the student violence that led to the murder of the head of the campus in 2005 and the resignation of the head in 2008. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Villain (2018 film)[edit]

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

Fails GNG. The only review (questionable if this can be considered full length review) is [25]. Couldn't find other full length review by a nationally known critic per WP:NFO. Other criteria for NFO also fail. - Harsh 22:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 22:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 22:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That counts as a full review but more are needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:00, 7 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 has been previously PROD'd. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2018-09 ✍️ create, 2018-09 ✗ PROD

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 08:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the multiple reviews needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM Spiderone 11:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this film found online other than that 1 review, which isn't enough to support notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Onifade[edit]

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

No major achievements to pass the academics criteria. And no significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. - The9Man ^(Talk) 08:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article probably should be at "Fehintola Onifade", but she does not pass GNG nor NACADEMIC.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass academic notability. Being the head of a library is not counted as the type of academic position that grants automatic notability, and beyond that we lack any sourcing that will show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Also I read the supplied sources. Two were juat notices of the appointment to the librarian position, and the third just had her in a list of people that attended a university meeting. North8000 (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all of the above rationals, subject woefully fails every GNG criteria as such it shouldn't be here. Em-mustapha ^talk 14:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Kamal[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. I don't understand how "challenging the authenticity" of artwork makes anyone notable. Probable case of COI or UPE. M4DU7 (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Google searches bring up quite a few different people with this name, but not this one. No evidence of notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search engine brings up Asif Kamal on all three pages, Founder of Asif Kamal Foundation, Art Connoisseur, social worker, and Indian art promotor, well-established evidence of notability. I have found few articles of his recent contribution to the world using Wikipedia Find Source, you can see them in the article, I have just inserted in the article for your reference. few of them are here below
https://www.hindikhabar.com/news/This-Bihari-Babu-lives-in-Dubai-helping-rural-India-in-fighting-Corona-53897-39
https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2020/feb/10/puzzle-pieces-of-the-art-world-2101352.html
https://www.gaonconnection.com/desh/farmer-agricultural-scientist-kvk-agriculture-universiry-honored-on-92-icar-foundation-day-47827? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkoll (talk • contribs) 16:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article provides very little evidence that its subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ There is enough evidence that establish that the subject is notable. This is the 5-year-old page of renowned art collector and connoisseur from India. I suggest should remove his from the category of Emirati business people and add into Indian entrepreneur and Indian art collector

1. An avid art collector and connoisseur, he first started the unique art bank in the world, promote Indian art internationally. 2. runs a foundation for his philanthropy work, his foundation works in the field of healthcare and education in rural India. 3. his art venture is uniquely supporting the artist's community and provide them loan against their art.

https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/creating-global-market-for-indian-art-and-artist-by-changing-its-orthodox-way/1543487
https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/deposit-your-artwork-get-a-loan-114072800893_1.html
https://www.businesstoday.in/pti-feed/creating-global-market-for-indian-art-and-artist-by-changing-its-orthodox-way/story/351352.html
https://news.abplive.com/uncategorized/empowering-rural-india-will-empower-real-india-asif-kamal-on-healthcare-education-of-underprivileged-1238032
http://newstablet.in/?p=7085
https://www.asifkamalfoundation.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkoll (talk • contribs) 21:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only one profile of Asif in a not very reliable source [[26]], and the rest is either about challenging the art, about his group Alturaash, or about the Art Fund, none of which are themselves notable based on media coverage. Challenging the authenticity of art doesn't make one notable, never mind the fact that in neither case was there any indication that the works were indeed fake. It's WP:BLP1E, and fails WP:GNG. The keep voter voted twice. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can see many page about Asif including this [[27]], and the one you have mentioned, i believe this page need little bit modifications but clearly not suitable for directly deletion. In all the cited profile, links and articles, clearly its not a case of deletion , its easily proving its evidence and notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkoll (talk • contribs) 22:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tomkoll, if you think it's easy to prove his notability, you should go ahead and do it – by adding to the article some references to reliable independent sources with in-depth discussion of him. Maproom (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as has been pointed out, user:Tomkoll has voted twice, so I've struck out their second vote. Note to closing moderator, their account was created yesterday and, with the exception of a single addition to the article, has made no edits outside of this AfD discussion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -as has been advised by ~dom Kaos~ above , reliable independent source and in-depth discussion on the subject.
https://www.hindikhabar.com/news/this-bihari-babu-living-in-dubai-is-helping-rural-india-in-fighting-corona-53897-39 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.31.3.25 (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abus Kransysteme[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Abus Kransysteme

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

I'm not sure what's notable about this company. The only source in the article is primary and I can't find anything that would pass WP:NCORP in a search for it. There are a few other sources in the German article, but they don't seem to pass the notability standards either. Adamant1 (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete badly wriiten article, with no sources + references. It appears to be advertising. Devokewater (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable and the article is not reported by reliable secondary sources. KRtau16 ^«Talk» 07:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:KRtau16|''' KRtau16 ''']][[User talk:KRtau16|'''''«Talk»''''']] (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No significant coverage. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the german wp article on this company is here, it has a more info, but not much in the way of sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Høgh Faurskov[edit]

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

The footballer never player in a fully professional league or for the main national selection, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable youth player Spiderone 11:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sofie Karsberg[edit]

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

The footballer never player in a fully professional league or for the main national selection, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable player who has not played fully pro football Spiderone 11:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footbaler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. More discussion should take place on the talk page about how to best organize this content. Sandstein 07:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nazi extermination camps and euthanasia centers[edit]

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

These are separate phenomena and I don't think a unified list is appropriate, since it implies a greater connection than exists in reality. Both are already listed in more detail and accuracy, separately, at extermination camp and Aktion T4#Number of euthanasia victims. (t · c) buidhe 07:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 07:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 07:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be more then willing to vote delete based on the redundancy and apparent lack of good sourcing, but I wonder how an AfD works when it comes to an article that is still being created and is under major editing. Perhaps the nomination was a little premature. Although, I guess it will still have the problems with redundancy once it's finished. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, I tried to discuss it with the creator (see his talk page), however he disagreed so I thought AfD would be the best place to decide whether the article is redundant (which does not depend on how developed it is). (t · c) buidhe 07:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per below (Adamant1 I tried to address your concerns, thanks for any follow up).

Editors considering this should take into account the discussion at Talk:List of Nazi concentration camps#Accuracy. It provides important background/context to this article being created.

re: "I tried to discuss it with the creator" One comment and one reply and then an AfD all within 1 hour is not really a discussion. Also editors in the original discussion I think should have had input.

re: "These are separate phenomena and I don't think a unified list is appropriate since it implies a greater connection than exists in reality." There is a significant and substantial connection between the euthanasia killing centers and extermination camps, in people, preparation, technology, experience. This has been documented in secondary sources such as The Origins of the Final Solution by Christopher Browning, Into That Darkness by Gitta Sereny and The Origins of Nazi Genocide and From Euthanasia to the Final Solution by Henry Friedlander. The connection is also referred to and sourced in Aktion T4#Technology and personnel transfer to death camps. The overwhelming consensus of secondary sources is that they are connected.

re "Both are already listed in more detail and accuracy, separately, at..." In terms of accuracy, I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion since the sources used in the list are from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. There are debates as to numbers, but this has been accounted for by the wording in the sources. This qualifies as a legitimate list as a Summary style meta-article WP:SUMMARY. List >> Extermination Camps >> Chelmno. From WP:SPINOFF "Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject in different articles, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter." In this case the summary is being created after the detail, but this is only because the editor proposing that this article be deleted, removed the summary content from the list it was originally in. See [28]. I agreed with the suggestion that the information be removed from the original list based on the understanding that "separate new articles/lists are written for the different camp types" [29]. I believe that separate lists were also the choice of Chefallen and K.e.coffman, but they can comment here. There was a very short discussion before buidhe prematurely (imo) ended the discussion on the talk page and made his proposed revision. If the choice was between deleting the content and not splitting it into separate articles I would have been against the deletion and in favor of improving the original article. I from the talk page discussion I think K.e.coffman and Chefallen. If this new article is to be deleted I think the change on the original should be reverted as the consensus for change would be for improvement not deletion. // Timothy :: talk 08:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I'll generally be holding off on continuing to edit the new article until I see the direction this discussion is heading. Please don't interpret my lack of editing there as abandoning the new article. I may edit and if the changes on the original are reverted in favor of improvement, perhaps the new article material can be merged in. // Timothy :: talk 08:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue, one issue is that you are misinterpreting the source. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/chelmno does not support that "Seven Jews are known have survived by escaping in 1942". It says that they escaped but actually that not all survived.

I never said that there wasn't a connection between euthanasia and the extermination camps, but they were fundamentally different entities and it makes little sense to combine them into one list. For similar reasons, List of Nazi concentration and extermination camps makes little sense, as discussed at Talk:List of Nazi concentration camps#Accuracy. (t · c) buidhe 08:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re: Escape. I wasn't misinterpreting the source, but I wasn't clear on my wording. They survived internment in Chelmno. Some may have been killed later, but they survived long enough for their names and successful escape to be recorded and details of the camp revealed. This is an area where the article can be very simply improved, not an argument for deletion.

re: "they were fundamentally different entities". How were they fundamentally different? They were both facilities used by the same people for the extermination of individuals the Nazis considered a threat to the "German race". The former (euthanasia centers) created the technology and experience and developed the people that would be used in the extermination camps. One directly evolved from the other.

re: "For similar reasons, List of Nazi concentration and extermination camps makes little sense". The entire purpose of the concentration and extermination camps was different. The grouping them together is apples and oranges. The entire purpose of the euthanasia centers and extermination camps was the same. Apples and apples.

re: Sources. I've provided three book length scholarly secondary sources focused on the fundamental connection between the euthanasia centers and extermination camps. Could you provide sources to support 'they were fundamentally different entities". // Timothy :: talk 09:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The euthanasia centers targeted mostly mentally ill and handicapped people, while the extermination camps were almost exclusively dedicated to the genocide of Jews. The current list elides that fundamental difference. (t · c) buidhe 09:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both groups were individuals the Nazis considered a threat to the "German race" and therefore they were targeted for extermination. I've provided three book length scholarly secondary sources focused on the fundamental connection between the euthanasia centers and extermination camps. You have not cited any sources.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. 09:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. 09:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 09:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 09:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the reasoning that they are somehow connected enough (I'm not saying they are they aren't) to warrant an article, then IMO it at least shouldn't be a list because it's something that needs explaining. Otherwise, it's just seems like a list of two separate ideas with the only connection being the "and" in the tittle. Although, if it was changed to an actual article I don't see how it could be done without it being borderline independent research or editorializing. The problem is, you need reliable sources talking specifically talking about their connection. Not completely different sources on extermination camps then for euthanasia centers that don't even discuss the connection. Otherwise, your the one making the connection, not the sourcing. And it can't just be vague wording like "Nazi's had extermination camps and they had euthanasia centers." That's not a 1/1 correlation worth of an article anymore then it would be to have "List of Nazi extermination camps and air planes" (or whatever), because Nazi's had extermination camps and used air planes. I agree with Buidhe that these are problems inharent with this particular article that can't be solved as it currently is, but maybe not with the subject itself. So, maybe it warrants the AfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it were converted into an article it would be even more duplicative of content in Aktion T4 and extermination camp which explains the connection as well as differences. (t · c) buidhe 10:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1. Thanks for your comment. I'll try and address each one of your points.

re: Sources - In my original reply I cited three sources. The Origins of the Final Solution by Christopher Browning, Into That Darkness by Gitta Sereny and The Origins of Nazi Genocide and From Euthanasia to the Final Solution by Henry Friedlander. This is discussed in far more sources and if there was a debate on the issue, there would be sources refuting the claim. A brief paragraph in the lead could summarize the connection and cite the sources. The reader could then drill down to the article for a fuller explanation (per the below guidelines).

re: Separate article: I'm supporting this as a legitimate list as a Summary style meta-article per WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPINOFF guideline. List >> Extermination Camps >> Chelmno. From WP:SPINOFF "Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject in different articles, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter."

I've provided three sources and two guidelines to support my position. The nominator has provided no sources or guidelines to support their position. Thanks for your consideration. // Timothy :: talk 10:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the reasons I stated in my last comment. I have zero problem with the subject, but I don't think a list is the right format for this. As is, it's just a recreation of already existing articles and it's not even clear how the items in the list have anything to do with the topic of the article. Plus, it's mostly prose in list form. Which goes against the point in lists. If you have to write long paragraphs explaining things (that don't even explain anything) then I think your using the list article format wrong. I don't feel the need to have a protracted conversation about it either. Especially since the person who created the article isn't willing to consider other perspectives. Even if they were though, the problems that warrant deletion are inherent in the way the article is setup and can't be remedied through simple edits to it. Such is life sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Template:The_Holocaust list everything already, but a list allows for more information to be given, far more useful than a template or a category. No sense putting these things in separate list, it all about murdering innocent people the Nazi's determined were inferior to them. Dream Focus 11:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone here suggesting it should be turned into a category, template, or separate lists. Although, there are already lists that cover what's in here. The suggestion was that it should be a normal article that actually explains the topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any list covering this. List of Nazi concentration camps does not include this information anymore. I see it used to [30] but they removed it and linked to this article, created to hold the information separately. Dream Focus 11:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE Restore where the information was at before [31], there no point in having it split out like this. Dream Focus 11:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DreamFocus is now suggesting that this list should merge into List of Nazi concentration camps. That would be clearly inappropriate as neither extermination camps nor euthanasia centers were Nazi concentration camps. (see Types of Nazi camps.) (t · c) buidhe 11:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then rename that article List of Nazi camps then. Dream Focus 11:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A list of Nazi camps would have 40,000+ entries (according to research by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum), which is clearly impractical. (t · c) buidhe 12:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously list articles like this only contain articles that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 13:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if Merge gains a consensus, I agree with Dream Focus that the orignal article should be renamed and reverted to where it was before and the discussion on the talk page that was (imo) prematurely ended continue and gain a clear consensus before changes are made on how to restructure the article. I agreed with buidhe in the talk discsussin that the original article had serious issues. But a consensus is needed for how to improve it.

I'm still strongly in favor of Keep. I think splitting the content into different lists so that readers can "drill down" from "Types of Camps" >> "Lists" of different camps by type >> Camp Article >> Camp subcamp articles is acceptable per WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPINOFF as explained above. But I accept whatever the community consensus supports and work to improve whatever structure emerges.

Respectfully, one thing that does bother me, I have listed WP:RS and guidelines to back up my position. No one seems to be willing to address this with sources or guidelines. I think this should be addressed. Regardless it will not impact my above commitments.

Please let me know with a little advanced time if the article is to be deleted so I can save my most recent changes to assist in the Merge. I will try and keep up to date backups but just in case. Respectfully submitted. // Timothy :: talk 12:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one addressed WP:RS because this isn't and never was about reliable sources. Which should have been pretty obvious. You only made it about that as a way to not talk about what the AfD discussion is actually about. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completely wrong. In the nomination it stated: "These are separate phenomena and I don't think a unified list is appropriate, since it implies a greater connection than exists in reality." The nom brought up the connection between the two and I listed RS to show there is a scholarly consensus that the is a strong connection. This is a big part of what this is about. // Timothy :: talk 13:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that something is connected is very different than saying it's the same, or that editorially it belongs in the same article/list. No one disputes that it's connected. Furthermore, it's not very helpful to the discussion to keep posting the same points over and over again. (t · c) buidhe 13:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to List of Nazi concentration camps and Move that article to List of Nazi camps per User:Dream Focus. The existing list article would not be too long as of now for notable entries, but if it does grow too large in the future these other two camp sub-categories would make reasonable WP:SPINOFF articles. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: both types of installations are described in literature as "killing centres"; e.g. [32] re: the so-called euthanasia program, and [33], re: extermination camps. The two concepts were connected in methods; personnel from one was reassigned to the other, etc. Here's a source that discusses both: "KILLING CENTERS: AN OVERVIEW", from USHMM. So it makes sense to have a list for the topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The information in this list was removed from the List of Nazi concentration camps on the understanding that it did not fit that category. I think there are two options for this list which contains that spinoff information now: either rename it to List of Nazi killing centers so that it conceptually covers both euthanasia sites and extermination camps which TimothyBlue and K.e.coffman have established can fit into one conceptual category with unchallenged Wikipedia:Reliable sources; or split it into two lists - one called List of Nazi extermination camps for those six camps (a short list indeed, but an important one) and one for the somewhat more numerous List of Nazi euthanasia centers. All the lists, however many we decide to have in the end, can and should be linked in a common sidebar. --Chefallen (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to just List of Nazi extermination camps, per K.e.coffman's argument that they are both considered the same. In general, I don't like lists of stuff that does not have its own article, and e don't seem to have an article on Nazi euthanasia centers (maybe User:Buidhe could stub it, or otherwise redirect it where apropriate?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, Nazi euthanasia centers are already listed at Aktion T4. Furthermore, there is a list of extermination camps at extermination camp. (t · c) buidhe 07:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are articles with lists embedded within that supplement the article's prose content. This is a discussion about stand-alone lists that itemize the instances described at length in those articles (and of course, should also have links to those main topic articles in the lede, and each item on the list should link to the article about it). --Chefallen (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A pure list with no prose would be more acceptable. But that is not what is being developed here. This is a rival not a supplement of better existing articles. Srnec (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nom points out, it is just totally redundant. We already covert this better elsewhere. Duplicating it is a bad idea. If consensus favours a List of Nazi killing centers, I would prefer a bare list of links as a navigational aid only over the redundant style of list that is being developed now. Srnec (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no justification for deletion whatsoever. These subjects are clearly related and hence belong to the page. The euthanasia centers are only briefly mentioned on the page (how that can justify deletion?), and the section about them needs expansion. One might suggest to split the page, but even that would hardly be reasonable.My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The justification is WP:REDUNDANTFORK. —Srnec (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I missed it. Keep and merge after discussion to List of Nazi concentration camps. Do not delete because this page provides a lot more information about the specific camps than the List of Nazi concentration camps. My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, Please consider WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPINOFF. (List >> Extermination Camps >> Chelmno). I believe this clarifies that WP:REDUNDANTFORK does not apply here. Thanks // Timothy :: talk 18:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you are right because "concentration camp" and "extermination camp" are not necessarily the same, even though some authors emphasize a lot of similarities. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Nazi concentration camps and Move that article to List of Nazi camps WP:ATD-M There is room and no need for stand alone. This is a tangentially WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Lightburst (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, This is not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. This qualifies as a legitimate list as a Summary style meta-article. Please see WP:SUMMARY. List >> Extermination Camps >> Chelmno. From WP:SPINOFF "Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject in different articles, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter." // Timothy :: talk 17:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It is useful to have a short list with explanations available for those who do not wish to delve into all the detail. WP commonly has list articles. I would oppose any attempt to expand this article substantially, as that would result in a redundant duplicate. It is also useful to have details of the Aktion T4 euthanasia programme place alongside the extermination camps. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. It's notable and still being edited. WP:FORK and WP:LIST suggest, but do not require, deletion, where a list can supplement another longer list or a large category for navigation purposes. "Republication is not necessarily a breach of copyright, so long as the appropriate licenses are complied with." "Lists are sometimes the best way to present information." Bearian (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Guldager[edit]

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

The footballer never player in a fully professional league or for the main national selection, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable player; fails NFOOTY Spiderone 11:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jack Frost (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Units[edit]

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

Lack of sources BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 06:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 06:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep. Additional presentation of reliable coverage satisfies notability guidelines. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 07:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, their albums get reviews on Pitchfork (website)[34][35] or Popmatters [36] or Spill Magazine[37] or Soundblab[38]. They have a biography at Allmusic[39], interviews in the Las Vegas Weekly[40] and the Washington TImes[41], the Santa Barbara Independent[42], attention in Billboard[43], MondoSonoro (in Spanish)[44]... Oh, and an article in the New York Times[45]. Can the nominator and the delete voter please explain what kind of search they actually did to find no sources, as it is a bit hard to see how they achieved that result... Fram (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fram. Occasionally album articles initially end up being better sourced than the band article. Caro7200 (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article obviously needs to cite more sources. When I saw the additional sources uncovered by Fram (talk), I checked them out as some of those publications/sites are either small time or have an uneven track record of containing both legitimate coverage and promotional disguised as coverage. In this case, I'm happy to say there is enough significant coverage to pass muster. Nice legwork, Fram, in hunting down enough to save an entry. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as identified in this discussion that show that both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC are clearly passed imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Oakwood University. Tone 17:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oakwood Adventist Academy[edit]

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

Advertish article about a k-12 school that only contains primary sources except for one. Which is about "education" and only mentions this school in extremely trivial passing fashion. As an alternative to deletion it could be merged with or redirected to Oakwood University since it's located on their campus. Adamant1 (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 07:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 07:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oakwood University this article is a promotional mess sourced almost exclusively to primary sources, and as a result it fails GNG. I could find a couple of passing mentions, one not-really an article that only a very short paragraph long, and this article [46], which at first looks like it might help, but it was actually written by one of the students at the school, meaning it is clearly not a reliable source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the university. High schools operated on university campuses should be covered on the university article unless we can truly make a substantial number of statements about the high school itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I will apply salt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Shaikh (TikTok)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Faisal Shaikh (TikTok)

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

The subject of article lacks WP:NN. Being merely a Actor and Model doesn't prove his notability. The article does not cite any independent coverage in reliable sources. Lal Singh Chadda (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion guidelines for Actor and Model.लाल सिंह चड्डा (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC) blocked as sockpuppet ~ Amkgp 💬 13:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems pretty clear cut that they are a non-notable actor. I'm not sure what else there is to say about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 15 July 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 July 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor as per WP:ENT. Most of the references are sponsored sources in nature. Few of the references has no connection with the subject. ~ Amkgp 💬 07:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 07:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 07:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Link to previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faisal Shaikh (actor) ~ Amkgp 💬 10:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an actor or model.Prashantpandey31 (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Still not notable, and been created at different name possibly to avoid scrutiny. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete utter fucking nonsense and should have been deleted under g4 as there is virtually nothing different from the last AFD, still some non-nontable vanity spammer (and also likely a g5) Praxidicae (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - both Faisal Shaikh (TikTok) and Faisal Shaikh (actor) until GNG is met, which may never happen Spiderone 09:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt and title blacklist' Anything to do with Faisal Shaikh as it does not meet GNG and is non notable 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion guidelines for actor and model. Japan Se (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japan Se (talk • contribs)
Delete - Entirely non-notable; not a thing indicating WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:NACTOR are met. Given recreation, agree with the suggestion of salting the earth. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Rocket Studio[edit]

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

An obscure video game company from the Noughties. It has developed a few games, including some notable ones, in connection to which it appears in some news articles as "Hydravision/Mighty Rocket has developed X". However, news bits like this do not make the company notable, nor does it inherit notability from its games. The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. IceWelder [✉] 06:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 06:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 06:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Outside of brief mentions in articles for other games, I can't find anything that could achieve notability here. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 21:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Likewise, I couldn't find anything substantial on the subject. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Obscure_(video_game)#Sequels_and_Future, where it would be appropriate to mention the studio's closure & name change. --Lockley (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alif Bank[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. The references in the article are nothing more than routine announcements ("bank received a license for X") and interviews with the director Abdullo Kurbanov, thus not independent from the subject. Lacks in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Ə XPLICIT 11:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ə XPLICIT 11:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ə XPLICIT 11:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. Ə XPLICIT 11:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional materials:
Delete As state by the nominator all the sources are extremely trivial or primary and therefore don't work for notability. The same goes for the new sources that where provided by KDOJUN. Especially the last one that just says "Alif Bank" and nothing else about the company. Which clearly doesn't meet the notability standards. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Finneas O'Connell. Disappointing to have to depreciate votes due to canvassing Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Break My Heart Again[edit]

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

The article fails the Notability guidelines for songs in Wikipedia as not only none of the three bullet points in the guidelines are met, but also there is not "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". It displays two reliable sources, including Our Culture mag that discusses the song and Alternative Press that only mentions Finneas releasing a new song and video for it, so it was barely discussed. The rest on the article focuses on his accomplishments with Billie Elish and there is one interview with him that falls under the "This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work", so it shouldn't be taken into consideration. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is obviously way more than two reliable sources. Atwood Magazine and CelebMix are also reliable sources. I've seen both sources used for articles that are at GA! Note: And I hope Maranofan doesn't cause more problems here. DarklyShadows (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reability of Celebmix has been contested several times, Atwood is an interview, therefore it fails "self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work". MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MarioSoulTruthFan Take a look at VKTM and tell me what you think. Take a look at the first source that is used MUTIPLE times. The article uses only this source for most of it and it's at GA! DarklyShadows (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the first thing about that article, but it seems it only provides one source, if you feel like it should be deleted and not pass GA, its up to you. Once more, this is not the place to have said discussion. My nomination stays in for this article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DarklyShadows, having reviewed VKTM, I've nominated it for deletion. I don't think it meets WP:NSONGS. It shouldn't have passed WP:GAN IMO because it fails criteria 2 (verifiable) as a significant proportion of the content is not independent, and secondly, it fails criteria 3 (broad) because there are many aspects of the song which are not discussed. But that's not a conversation for here. The deletion conversation of said topic is up for discussion at the article's page. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 21:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (my preference) or Redirect to Finneas O'Connell - For about the seventh time it is necessary to state that a Finneas song is not notable just because it was released as a single. Per the above discussion, whether or not CelebMix is reliable does not matter too much for this song because that publication only announced the single's release and said a few nice things about the video. The other magazine-like sources in the article, like Atwood Magazine and Our Culture Mag, could be reliable for this article if they did anything more than announce the song's existence, which they don't. A "reliable" source is a good start, but it still must say something significant about the item. All these Finneas song articles by DarklyShadows are passionately written but give us little more than fan trivia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Finneas O'Connell: Same thoughts with Finneas' songs nominated for deletion. Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable song, no significant coverage, nothing to merge. Offtopic, but I would never use CelebMix as a source.—N Ø 17:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I know this did not chart but it was released as a standalone single and a music video was released, so I see notability --Kyle Peake (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kyle Peake and another user were canvassed with non-neutral pleases to take part in the discussion. I've warned DarklyShadows with an appropriate message. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 22:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apologies for intruding on this discussion. In response to the keep rationale, notability is not given to a song because it was released as a single or was promoted with a music video. Discussions on notability should focus on whether or not the subject received significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, WP:NSONGS says that "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label, "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". In light of the last sentence, all of these independent releases could be contained on the artists page. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - this is the he same issue we had with early Twenty One Pilots material. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED . Just because the subject has achieved mainstream popularity does not make all of his old material notable. It doesn’t meet the WP:GNG. Only a plausible search term. Sergecross73 msg me 03:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage of the music video is applicable and is a reason to keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just want to note that Robert McClenon was also canvassed here by article creator. So, to summarise, this discussion has a grand total of 0 keep votes from neutral users.--N Ø 08:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect: this clearly fails WP:NSONGS because it doesn't meet any of the three basic criteria there and isn't notable in any other way: a released music video of the song is not itself a notable event, and its discussion in the given source was basically a sentence saying the song had dropped, another saying that the music video had dropped (quoted in the article), and then a sentence that says he has dropped several singles but no album, before the article pivots to gush about the artist's sister, Billie Eilish, at far greater length. Not a source of any quality, and certainly not "non-trivial" as required by NSONGS. Also doesn't meet WP:GNG, and as noted earlier, Finneas's notability does not extend to each of his works, which need their own notability. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Robert McClenon Nirvanaisbae (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Nirvanaisbae is a confirmed sockpuppet of DarklyShadows (now known as "The Ultimate Boss"), who commented above. Mz7 (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial coverage of a song being released isn't enough to cut it with notability. same goes for the music video IMO. There has to be multiple in-depth reviews in reliable sources for this to be notable and there isn't any. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 core policies of Wikipedia are that our content (especially as it relates to living persons) must be verifiable through reliable sources and must not consist of original research. The "delete" side makes a strong case that this article fails these policies because the article cites no sources to verify this hypothetical line of succession to an abolished throne. The "keep" opinions generally do not even attempt to address this core policy problem and must therefore be discounted. Sandstein 08:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne[edit]

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

A. The "present line of succession" is hypothetical--inferred based on who would have been emperor if all nobility/royalty hadn't been abolished and outlawed in 1919. There is no actual, legal line of succession, nor is there a reliably-sourced movement to restore the empire that confirms this ordering. The page is actually just an unverified line of succession to various heads of families.

B. The intent of this article is to maintain an active line of succession based upon Almanach de Gotha and other nobility periodicals. However, as these sources are not updated regularly, other sources such as birth announcements on twitter are used to update the article, with the editor's own interpretation of succession laws determining where in the line a person now stands. Even if the title still existed, this would be OR. Additionally, cobbling together disparate references to create a more expansive diagram of relationships than that seen in individual sources is synthesis.

C. Most of the people in this line do not have WP articles, and no sources are provided verifying their inclusion. This is firstly a BLPNAME violation (particularly for the minors); secondly a violation of general BLP sourcing requirements -- possibly meeting the criteria for immediate removal: claiming noble titles is *illegal* in Austria, so inclusion on here could therefore be a contentious allegation; and thirdly an issue of DUE. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC) JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator.Smeat75 (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A listing of 98 heirs to a non-existent title would be ridiculously out of proportion even were it not for the sourcing, OR, synth, BLP and other issues. Agricolae (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems a misguided AFD, surely if there are concerns about one part of the article (i.e. the current line of succession) then take it to the talk page rather than delete the whole article? Why base the whole AFD on one area (i.e. the current list), even without that its still a useful topic of relevant historic significance. It discusses issues like morganatic marriages such as the famous one of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. If the living people can't be sourced properly they should be removed but the article should be kept. But this is wrong place to be having the discussion. - dwc lr (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing misguided about this at all. Even the small amount of text (14 lines vs almost 200 lines dedicated to detailing the orders of succession) is discussing so-called rules for a non-existent game. Morganatic marriages do not disqualify someone from succeeding to the Austro-Hungarian throne because there is no Austro-Hungarian throne to be disqualified from the succession to, and we can neither ourselves determine what the current rules should be nor present a speculative alternative historical scenario whereby the Austro-Hungarian throne of 1918 persists in perpetuity with the rules from that time. It is the entire page that is misguided, not the proposal to get rid of it. Agricolae (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is to delete an article based on one section of it, neither yourself or the proposer mentioned any other reasons. This is an article that you need to look at from a historic context, not just the current context, and then you also need to look at it overall. There are plenty of reliable sources for the text in the history section all relevant to the topic of the article so it’s clearly a notable topic with or without the current in line of succession. Successions to abolished thrones are topics that have considerable coverage, particularly those like France or Russia where there has been a dispute over who is the rightful heir or head of the former reigning house. Those 14 lines of text can be expanded over time by different editors, they can’t be if it gets deleted because of one section of the article. - dwc lr (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it overall, this is an article about delineating who are the heirs to a throne that doesn't exist, based on rules that don't exist anymore, and assuming that the recent marital foibles of the family that used to rule somehow are binding on their extinct polity. Agricolae (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the Belgian monarchy ended tomorrow would we delete the Belgian Line of succession article? I don’t think we would, it’s still a notable topic from a historic perspective at the very least discussing the evolution over time, the same is true here. -dwc lr (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a relevant list, such as Line of succession to the former Brazilian throne, Line of succession to the former Russian throne or Line of succession to the former French throne (Orléanist). I see a double standard here regarding Austria-Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF Agricolae (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTCARE. :) Your above arguments are false and deceptive. Yugoslavia, Kingdom of the Two Sicilies or Saxony were also non-existent countries anymore. This article is well sourced, and also included the last legal situation in November 1918. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia and the Two Sicilies and Saxony also have nothing to do with this AfD. There is nothing or deceptive about the OR, SYNTH, BLP, etc., etc., violations, but you don't care. Not much left to say, then, is there. Agricolae (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norden1990 is right. The same principle applies, the concept of succession to an abolished throne still applies and doesn’t become invalid or not notable overnight if a current monarchy was abolished today. - dwc lr (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's weird about the article is that it assumes the monarchy never stopped, which is absolutely ridiculous. I think an article that cuts off right at the end of the monarchy could be kept, but I don't know if that article exists, and in no way, shape, or form should anyone afterwards be included, as it's basically make believe. Whether that means I'm a keep on notability grounds or a delete on WP:TNT grounds, I'm not sure. SportingFlyer T·C 18:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the article makes clear the monarchy was abolished and article title says former throne etc. The position of heir to the throne/pretender/head of the house of Habsburg or whatever you want to call it exists and is notable still and it’s not just a random person plucked out of thin air who occupies it the succession carries on and sources would back that up. The French monarchy was abolished long ago but the succession to the throne and who is the rightful heir is a point of contention make believe or not.[47]. If the Belgian monarchy ended tomorrow I don’t see why the line of succession to the Belgian throne article would be deleted it would still contain encyclopaedic content, same as in this article. - dwc lr (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You just made a distinction between "head of a family" and "heir to the throne." There is no throne. SportingFlyer T·C 20:11, 8 July 2020 la)!9(UTC)

You are not addressing the BLP violations, OR and lack of verification raised by the nominator. Also lack of notability. "Who would be 10th in line" to a non existent throne is perhaps an amusing diversion for some but does not belong here. I agree that if the article stopped at the date the monarchy was abolished it would be OK, to continue after that is ludicrous fantasy. Smeat75 (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ive said if there are problems with the current list let’s go to the article talk page. What’s happening here is saying let’s delete an article based on one section. There seems to be consensus the article should remain with the current list up for discussion. - dwc lr (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's time we stopped pandering to the people who pretend that the Habsburg Law never happened. Guy (help!) 22:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying delete based on your personal POV rather than anything else. -dwc lr (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and review succession list for non-notable people. I have read the articles for the people in this list who have them. None of them use the titles. There is no active monarchist movement. This is a family tree of a few rich people.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No offence but your last sentence makes you sound incredibly snobbish. - dwc lr (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The other pages for abolished monarchies under Template:Orders of succession by country might need looking at as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:EDB8:CE59:93E7:C06A (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's the only article we've got on succession to the Austro-Hungarian throne, which is a vastly important topic over which wars were fought and thousands of people were killed. DrKay (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps it could be limited to the line of succession as of 1918? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:5033:5966:80D3:C378 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Agree with Dr Kay. It's a very useful article, particularly as it updates the Gotha. Such articles are constantly targeted by those holding left-wing chips on shoulders, or obscure royalty-thingy grudges, and they need to be resisted, and recognised as the kind of cancel culture, corrosive to historical information, that they are. ClearBreeze (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this user has been blocked indefinitely for their behavior on this and other pages. JoelleJay (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The inclusion of people born post-1918 makes this little better than a hoax -- there is no way to make an article on this subject compatible with OR/SYNTH. I would support providing a copy to DrKay in user or draft space in case they want to use it for an article called succession to the Austro-Hungarian throne (or whatever) that doesn't pretend "the Austro-Hungarian throne" is a thing that has an extant line of succession. --JBL (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A line of succession does not exist without the state's validation of it, and since there is no such state any longer, the only thing that can be verified is a line of succession that stops in 1918. I would accept something on that (and in may already exist in the main article on the empire), but anything after 1918 is in pretense, and who is to say which pretender would be chosen were a new empire formed? And yes, similar articles about other disestablished monarchies ought to go as well, and for a reality check on monarchic succession, take a look at the Greek monarchy, which is just about as weird as it gets. Mangoe (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI there is a related discussion at NPOV regarding how wikipedia should handle people who inherit abolished titles. JoelleJay (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this Wikipedia article is going to be abolished, the same should also be done for all of the other Wikipedia articles that discuss the lines of succession to various former monarchies. Also, while Austria-Hungary doesn't actually exist anymore, both Austria and Hungary still exist right now and thus theoretically speaking the Hapsburg monarchy can be restored in either of these two countries even right now--even if the likelihood of this is extremely low at this specific point in time. Also, as a side note, I suppose that this article could have value in the sense that it lists all of the current male-line Hapsburgs with the exception of Franz Ferdinand's descents, who were disinherited due to Franz Ferdinand's morganatic marriage. Futurist110 (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support getting rid of other articles that synthesize unsourced lines of succession to abolished thrones. The information on the current male lines are mostly already in the House of Hapsburg article, with the exception of all the non-notable people. JoelleJay (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good idea. Just make sure to push for deleting all of those other articles if/after this specific article is deleted. Futurist110 (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically speaking, since the nations of Earth exist, they could appoint me Emperor of Mankind tomorrow, but that doesn't mean there should be an article about me and my family. That will have to wait until they see sense, or until it gets significant coverage in reliable sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, though, you're not ex-royalty. ;) Futurist110 (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither was Bernadotte. Agricolae (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's an exception to the rule. Futurist110 (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the point - as long as exceptions are possible, (or changes in succession rules like several existing monarchies abandoning male-preference primogeniture for non-gender-discriminating primogeniture), it is significantly problematic to assume either the rules of 1918 or the current rules of the former ruling family need apply to a hypothetical re-established monarchy, as this page and several others do. Agricolae (talk) 05:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the succession rules, there could be two camps in regards to this. One camp could say that we should stick to the old succession rules and only change them after a restoration of the monarchy while another camp could say that the head of a royal house could unilaterally change succession rules even without any restoration of a monarchy. The first approach is more stable and predictable, IMHO--and it of course still allows changes in the succession rules in order to make them more egalitarian once it actually begins to matter again, specifically if/after a monarchy is (ever) restored. Futurist110 (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the third (correct) camp: it doesn't matter what the rules possibly hypothetically could be, because the rules actually are that none of these people is monarch (or whatever) of anything. It is not possible to reliably source the succession rules for an entirely notional throne, and Wikipedia editors should not pretend otherwise. --JBL (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first approach is more stable and predictable, IMHO - Wikipedia has no business predicting, though - it is inherently WP:CRYSTAL to select any set of rules for a hypothetical future re-established monarchy, and it is inherently counterfactual to pretend that these are heirs to a currently non-existent title. Agricolae (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about we simply list the lines of succession for all of the different current claimants to the Austro-Hungarian thrones, then? As far as I know, though, Karl von Habsburg is literally the only current claimant to the Austro-Hungarian thrones. If there were also additional claimants to this throne (such as yourself and/or whomever, and if your and/or whomever's claims to these thrones actually got some media attention), then I would completely agree with you that this article should include these additional claimants as well as the lines of succession for their own claims to these thrones (if they would have actually put forward some mechanism to determine the line of succession for their own claims to these thrones, that is). Maybe this article should also include a note stating that a restored Austro-Hungarian monarchy could choose to stick with the line of succession that was historically used (and is still currently used by the House of Hapsburg to determine claimants to the defunct Austro-Hungarian thrones) or create a new line of succession through new succession rules/laws. Futurist110 (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple problems with this - first, as I understand it, he doesn't actually claim the Austro-Hungarian thrones. Second, if there is only one so-called claimant, there is no point to having a whole page dedicated to just this claim. Third, the statement that 'the Austro-Hungarian monarchy' can do whatever they please may seem obvious, but it is a direct claim that needs WP:V support, else it is just editorializing. Fourth, the whole thing is predicated on a dubious foundation, the idea that there will ever be an Austro-Hungarian nation-state, let alone one with a monarchy, ever again. That this post-Imperial, post-Soviet world will ever see a reunion of these nations based on some sentiment of historical nostalgia seems quite misplaced to me. Agricolae (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing for this as a notable topic is incredibly thin. By the time of the marriage of Archduke Karl in 1993 to Baroness Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza, who did not meet the old equality requirements, the rules regarding equal marriages had been relaxed. I should think so. At this point this is a very long article describing in detail a family's obscure and meaningless rules over who can be heir to a century-dead title over a country that no longer exists. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but prune and rename perhaps to Potential claimants to the Austro-Hungarian thrones. I choose that in preference to "Pretenders". This is speculative exercise, but I suspect we have articles on other similar ex-monarchies in Europe. The issue is a little more complex and speculative in this case, because of the issue as to which marriages are morganatic. We could probably usefully lose details of cousins who would come a long way down the order of succession if there was one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is speculative exercise. Yes, that is the whole point. Agricolae (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as unverifiable per the nominator's reasoning. The article is maybe 20% historical fact and 80% fiction, no line between the two, kind of a flaw in an encyclopedia. The theoretical succession stacks multiple implicit unexplained what-if assumptions on top of each other. First let's say the Austro-Hungarian empire is reborn and looking to fill its top job. Of all former monarchies in the world to pipedream about, this one was especially unstable, in chronic constitutional crisis, struggling to hold big stretches of Balkan territory under an impossibly complex dual monarchy. (By the way how does this article deal with the dual monarchy thing? Aren't there two lines of succession? "Unclear" at best.) As discussed above all noble titles were abolished within Austria in 1919, and Hungarian nobility was abolished in 1947 with a proposed reinstatement opposed by Hungarian courts as anti-democratic as recently as 2009. I mean, what if Kaiser Wilhelm were reincarnated as Amy Winehouse Jr.? What then? --Lockley (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What the current (theoretical) succession shows is the current line of succession to the headship of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, (or the Imperial House of Austria as it’s also known). - dwc lr (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm struggling to see why the line of succession to a notable throne, whether that throne is still legally extant or not, is not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion rationale offered has nothing to do with notability. --JBL (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 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 the Austro-Hungarian throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the monarchy itself was abolished more than a century ago. This article is as ridiculous an exercise in speculation as trying to determine the current chain of command of the East German National People's Army. TompaDompa (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a list that could be sourced using reliable sources. As DrKay points out this was an important topic -- so vital that wars were fought over the subject. This is of no interest to people who live in Republics and don't care to bother to read world history, but to many Europeans it remains something they would search for on Wikipedia. Once notable, a subject is always notable. Without a valid reason to delete, the status quo is the fallback option. AfD is not for fixing problems with sources or editing issues, which seem to be the bugaboo. If you must absolutely delete by necessary, or your head will explode, please make it a soft delete, and userfy it to my user-space so that I can work on it later. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would you source it? What WP:RELIABLE sources exist for the current line of succession to the no-longer-existent Austro-Hungarian throne? TompaDompa (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
so vital that wars were fought over the subject. Wars have never been fought over whether Bartholomäus of Austria-Este is 9th in line to . . . .whatever it is he is 9th in line to, because it certainly isn't any real existing throne. Agricolae (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is of no interest to people who live in Republics Like, say, everyone in Austria? The casual imputation of incompetence (if not actual maliciousness) onto editors who disagree with you was not charming coming from a SPA troll, and it is not more charming when coming from a long-time user. --JBL (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing one might learn from the actual War of the Austrian Succession is that these lines are essentially fictive the moment they are challenged, and I would think them especially so when there is no political or military force behind them. After all, how does one fight a war over what is not disputed? Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Barber[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted once before. The sources seem to still not justify having an article nor do they show any passing of the notability criteria for musicians. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:40, 7 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📧) 22:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale provided by nom @Johnpacklambert. I literally can’t seem to see any criterion from WP:SINGER met nor can I observe in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources for our subject of discussion. Even a source present in the article says subject is an up & coming artist.Celestina007 (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Newcomers (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, despite having many now notable people in the cast, it has no significant coverage by independent sources, just glancing mentions of the film, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 20:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a review online [[48]], but not sure if the source is considered "reliable". It does meet the "independent" criteria of reviews. Even if that doesn't count, I believe that this film meets the "Inclusionary criteria" of WP:NFO under the following criteria, which states, "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." This is the film debut of Chris Evans, a now well-known actor (Captain America). To remove an acting debut of a successful person just because they weren't known at the time, or the film had only a limited release would mean that films such as Three Rooms in Manhattan (Robert De Niro), Las Vegas Nights (Frank Sinatra), Can I Do It... 'Til I Need Glasses? (Robin Williams), and Another Nice Mess (Steve Martin) would also need to be removed as they are all pretty much non-notable films, except for the fact that the individuals appeared in them and they went on to have huge careers. Add in the fact that Evan's role in the film was much larger than any of the other actor's debut performances. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That line on WP:NFO is followed up by "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." Currently, that appearance is currently summarized as "Evans made his screen debut in the family drama The Newcomers in 2000." Is there other information that is notable about this film that could be added, and then redirect to Evans article? Even if another sentence was added indicating that there were notable co-stars, I think this would be more sensible than having an article on a film that seems otherwise not notable. BOVINEBOY2008 23:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Adding another line in Evan's bio mentioning the other notable actors in the film Kate Bosworth, Paul Dano, and Jeff Fahey seems like it would clutter up Evan's bio. And what of those actors? If someone searches for the film and it's redirected to Evans, that doesn't make much sense as he isn't the only notable person in the cast...and Bosworth is the "star" of the film, not Evans. As difficult as it is to find citations for this film online due to its extremely limited release, wanted it deleted seems more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT ("no need"). I usually agree with your AfD submissions, but in this case, it seems that this article can be improved rather than deleted. I already found that one review...there's bound to be more. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given your propensity for nominating/proposing far more notable non-American films for deletion I find your defence of this article surprising, to say the least. Please examine your own national/racial attitudes. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Real lack of logic with the films and performer comparisons. Shaking my head. There is a problem with lack of coverage. The solution to that is not how famous Chris Evans is. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one minor online review is not enough to justify notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability. I looked for contemporary reviews and found none. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Amorim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page has already been deleted once. Only independent coverage appears to be at https://nj1015.com/meet-anthony-amorim-a-nj-singer-songwriter-with-a-bright-future/, which is still very local. Other sources on page are akin to an IMDB credits list or primary source. Fail to see how it passes WP:BASIC. BriefEdits (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Original nomination page is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Amorim for reference. — BriefEdits (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still does not pass the relevant guidelines for notability of performers. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viewland, California[edit]

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

Here is a case illustrating the peril of taking passing reference to a town too seriously. This book states that Viewland is a "town" lying on US 395 at a certain point, and it is easy enough to tell that the author isn't reporting on having passed through an actual settlement a few years before the book's 2010 publication, because one can pull up the aerial photos from the period and see that there was nothing whatsoever there at the time. Old enough topos show that Viewland was a siding on the SP Modoc line, and before that on the Nevada–California–Oregon Railway, the predecessor narrow gauge line. The Modoc line was abandoned almost as soon as the SP-UP merger went through, and parts of it have gone rails-to-trails, including a section starting around here. There apparently was some talk of putting in a power substation somewhere nearby. But there's no town, and I can find no evidence that there ever was a town. Mangoe (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems there was an idea to build a community there in the 1950's, but it never happened. // Timothy :: talk 03:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 16:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Fenix down (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Del Frate[edit]

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

Does not meet either WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft With Monza's promotion to Serie B and their issues with the goalkeepers, (injuries), there could be a fair chance he could pass WP:NFOOTY for the 2020-21 season. I think it would be better to served to put the article in draft-space for now. Govvy (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Govvy: I support Monza, and I don't really know what you mean with GK injuries ahaha. Eugenio Lamanna will probably play all the games; we also have Daniele Sommariva as a GK. Anyway, I agree in putting him in the draft space. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Del Frate has more experience that Sommariva and last I knew Lamanna tweeked his right elbow, that must of been nothing then if he is fully fit. I wouldn't be surprised if Del Frate is on the bench a lot. Govvy (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: you never can tell what could happen. I would support moving the article to draftspace for now. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NFOOTY and GNG Spiderone 11:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aizawl Adventist Hospital[edit]

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

None notable local hospital that only has 50 beds. Plus, all three references in the article are primary sources. There's nothing about this hospital that passes WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. As an alternative to straight deletion it could also be redirected to somewhere like List of Seventh-day Adventist hospitals. Adamant1 (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking for references for this hospital were terrible. Catfurball (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Directed by Max[edit]

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

Promotional biography (likely autobio) with lots of name dropping and a lack of reliable independent sourcing. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Mccapra (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do see mention of him (so far typically as just "Max Hilva") in relation to the music videos, but so far there aren't any lengthy mentions that would really establish notability. Most of the time it's just an offhand mention that he directed the given music video. I don't think that there are any notability guidelines that specifically look at people who direct official music videos of notable songs. It's possible that this may merit a discussion in the future, but that's a discussion for another time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search turns up namechecks. (Not a notability comment, but the article title seems to be an attempt at promotion, as it is a brand name rather than his name.) So, Directed by Max, deleted by Wikipedia.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly an article written solely for the sake of promotion for a non-notable topic. While there are some mentions about the person in articles, they all seem to be in passing and lacking the depth needed to pass WP:GNG or more specific notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there is a potential claim of notability, there are no sources in the article that are in-depth and about him from reliable and verifiable sources, nor could I find anything more in a Google search that would meet the standard. Alansohn (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A promotional article for a non-notable filmmaker. It could be a case of TOOSOON, but at this time there is not enough out SIGCOV in RS out there on him nor his business to justify an article. Netherzone (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all notability criteria and almost all entirely primary sources, including Wikipedia *facepalm*. Single claim to fame of directing a video that ~~won~~ was "the #3 spot in VEVO's Top 10 Most Viewed Hip-Hop Videos of All Time" doesn't cut the mustard. Glen 11:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. Created (and directed) by a single-purpose account called Jointheorg what is now blocked up indefinite. --Lockley (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Bronn. Sandstein 08:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bronn (character)[edit]

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

Consists entirely plot and information from WP:PRIMARY sources, aside an article in The Telegraph which only mentions the character in passing. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCHARACTER Prisencolin (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The character seems to fail the notability guidelines due to a lack of usable sourcing. The only thing I could find is stuff about the actor who played him. Plus the article relies way to much on an overly detailed narrative tone and would take a fundamental re-write not to. So, I think TNT also applies. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Bronn: Outside of plot, there's hardly anything that can inform the reader of something interesting. The Optimistic One (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Refirect per above. I concur this fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - An article should (when considering GNG) should not be deleted based on lack of secondary sources in the article at that time, but on whether such sources exist. However I struggle to find any appropriate sources, seemingly like Adamant1. --Ted Edwards 22:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jack Frost (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Urdu literary critics[edit]

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

This list article contains no references and thus does not meet the requirement of WP:LISTVERIFY. A look at some of the individual articles listed shows that not all of the subjects are identified as critics in the text of their respective articles. Critics are organised on Wikipedia by category, we already have a category for Urdu critics and that seems sufficient. Mccapra (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's verifiable whether someone belongs in Category:Urdu critics, then it's also verifiable whether they belong in a list of the same thing. If there are incorrect entries in this list, remove them. If there are correct entries that do not have inline sources in this list, add the sources. Keep per WP:LISTPURP as standard index of people by occupation and as a complement to the category per WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with postdlf argument above that this list should be kept as a complement and in addition to the category. I will work on it to move some references from the existing individual Urdu literary critic articles to this List article. Encourage others to join in as well and work on it. There are dozens of Urdu critics on the list and we certainly have references there to copy-paste them here. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added 6 references to the above 'List article' today. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as discriminate and verifiable as long as the entries are notable. If other random people start appearing in here it's worth removing them. Archrogue (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists are not very strictly controlled. As long as a list is well-defined enough to prevent it from being WP:INDISCRIMINATE, we keep it. Per SALAT, a list that is likely to have too many entries could be split with narrower criteria instead of deleting. Plus we are always looking for ways to have index articles/lists to better integrate the encyclopedia. Ever since I found List of Nepalese people whose apparent purpose is to keep obscure Nepali biographies from being orphaned, my bar is pretty low. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 02:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dnash[edit]

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

Non-notable musician and make-up artist. No independent sources in the article, and a search for references elsewhere turns up only a bit of local coverage on her fang business--nothing about her music career and not nearly enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Article has been periodically edited by the subject. --Finngall ^talk 03:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - hi there. dnash here. so it appears this page was nominated for deletion by somebody who got into a row with me on a comment section who claimed i was making things up about myself. i am not. the page was created in 2006 by my partner at the time, and had more links on it than appear now, but some of those pages or entries that were linked must have been deleted over time. they were not under my purview. also, i made an attempt several years ago to get in and make edits myself, but somehow my account was unable to MAKE any edits so i left it alone. wikipedia is not the end all for me, and i have plenty of references out there elsewhere on the web that wikipedia can be said to hold the least amount of information that can be found about me. my business, Teeth By Dnash, has been in service since 1995, and i have been playing drums professionally since 1980. i've produced many people, played on many records, done teeth for film, stage, and the general public.... all manner of things that i have never bothered to populate my wiki page with. as i said, when i tried to get in a few years ago i was unsuccessful. ... today, however, i was, and was happy to change the pronouns used in reference to me and the picture as i had transitioned 7 years ago, and realized after i told this individual to google me that those would be the first thing to potentially pop up on google. in the interests of saving myself a bit of embarrassment, i made those changes. however, everything else on the page has stood for years. it's not my responsibility for others to contribute to my page, though a couple of the references there were placed by others, but i had every intention of adding more content as everything that had existed prior to 2017 had been written in 2006. and, as i said, when i tried to get in several years ago to change pronouns, etc, i was unable to. ... anyway, it's not up to me whether this page is deleted or not. some higher power is. all of this started, however, because somebody decided to question my existence in the real world, and my presence is very well established in other places than here. if this page goes away, there's still www.dnash.com, www.teethbydnash.com, my record credits, my film credits, my imdb page, my social media, and many other places that hold record of me. it would be a shame to go, but bigger fish than i have been fried by cancel culture. ... meanwhile, while i'm in here, i guess i should add some relevant links and the like, eh? too bad this is what precipitated that. class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbdnash

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic of the article lacks the notability required for an article. Plus, the article was created and been edited by someone with a clear COI. Also, Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia about everything and there are rules to what gets included. Some things have rules and "Cancel culture" has nothing to do with it. That's just life, get over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional (auto)biography with no convincing evidence of notability per WP:GNG. Guy (help!) 09:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Tbdnash: For the record, I had never heard of you until you requested the restoration of the draft article about your business over at WP:REFUND. As is my habit when I see efforts at self-promotion (which is not what Wikipedia is for) or other potential conflicts of interest, I checked your other edits and found the other article about you. My nominating it for deletion here is not about "canceling", or about any comments section anywhere (of which I know nothing and care even less), any doubt about the veracity of the information therein, or any value judgment about you personally. It is about whether there has been enough coverage of you and/or your work in independent, reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's standards for biographical articles. I found that Miami Herald article (which you have since added, thank you), a few blog posts, and little else. Social media is not reliable because anyone can post anything about anyone without any verifiability. IMDb is not reliable because the information therein can be edited by anyone just as it can here. If better sources can be found, that's great, let's get them in there and reevaluate. Thanks for listening. --Finngall ^talk 15:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly does not meet WP:GNG, entirely self-promotional and largely written by the person themselves. W C M_email 16:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tbdnash This article was not nominated for deletion because somebody decided to question my existence in the real world but rather because someone questioned whether you fit Wikipedia's specialized definition of "notability". There are literally billions of people who exist in the real world, but do not quality for articles on Wikipedia -- I am one of them. If you wish to affect this decision, you could point to examples of independent and reliable sources that have published writing about you in some detail. This means not things you have written, not fan pages, nor writings by your friends and family, nor by your business associates, nor directory entries, or one or two sentence passing mentions in pieces about something else. If several such pieces can be cited, the article would be likely to be retained. Otherwise, quite likely it will be deleted. So far no one has found and presented such sources. If you truly don't care, of course, you need not do anything. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note The articel currently says: Her single "You Can't Be" is featured on the soundtrack of the 2007 movie release, Fingerprints, This is uncited at the moment, but if it is accurate, i think this fulfills WP:NMUSIC mpoint 10, which is: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. If this claim can be sourced, the article should be Kept. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far not finding sourcing from anywhere other than IMDb. --Finngall ^talk 17:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not notable, person attempting to have an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 18:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note dnash here again. so, i've read the notes here as well as familiarized myself better with the rules regarding wiki entries. i see a lot of good point here, but i will add a couple more of my own.

1. i have had very little interaction with wikipedia. as i stated before, the page was originally published by my partner almost 15 years ago because they suggested i have one when they realized i didn't. the few times i have edited anything on it, i used the same login they had used. i have NO idea how the page works, nor a full grasp on its rules of etiquette, but i had to jump into it running. i have become more acquainted with them over the past 24 hours.

2. i completely understand the reasons why "self editing" is discouraged. the conflict of interest issue is certainly valid, and in the case of my edits, i have retained a sense of neutrality. the only references i see on the page that denote a "lack of objectivity" are the description of my music "lacking focus" which is something i've been told by countless music industry folks due to the diversity of my creations, and a line regarding my fang work and its level of respect in the vampire community which seems to have been edited out. all fair enough.

3. i have been cited by other sources which appear to no longer exist. as i said before, i'm not responsible for other people's entries, but obviously if they disappear, so does the citation.

4. i transitioned gender in 2013. i had tried several times, unsuccessfully, to update the picture of me and my pronouns to accurately reflect me today. i don't know WHY i was unable to do so, but none of the changes took, and i could not find any answers. at that time, i had also tried to start a page for my business which has been in operation since 1995, and is a very well known entity in the vampire and cosplay communities. however, that too was unsuccessful. ... up till that point, i had donated financially every year to Wikipedia, but after that i ceased to do so. i also wrote a letter explaining why, and how not allowing me to change those particulars was, in essence, a form of dead naming. picturing. whatever, lol. i didn't change my name when i transitioned because it's been my professional name since i was a teen and is well know in my industry.

4. before last night, this page had not been nominated for deletion. it only became so after i told somebody on a comment section who had accused me of being an anonymous troll to google me. i know that because i visited it realizing that if they or anybody else were to google me, it was going to have my old picture and pronouns displayed loud and proud. as said above, to avoid embarrassment, i tried logging in and was actually successful to FINALLY change those things. the person did in fact visit this wiki, and made some unflattering comments about me back in the comment section. no harm or foul on that one because it's a comment section and we all know how those work, but i cannot to believe there is no connection between the two.

5. i am currently working with the people on the other end of the citations to make sure they are correctly attributing me, as well as compiling further citations, but due to the concern of "self editing", i'm not sure how to proceed with that. regarding my musical contribution in the movie "Fingerprints", they don't have me listed on their IMDB, but my song is featured about 4 minutes into the movie, and i am fully credited in the end credits. none of the other individual artists were listed on the IMDB either, only the music supervisors.

6. this is not about self promotion, regardless of any accusation to the contrary. nobody comes to me for my work because of my wiki. rather, i'm at the top of virtually every search platform for my craft in fang making. i don't have to advertise because, frankly, i'm non-stop busy, and i don't see the need to fix what's not broken. i am blessed as an artist to survive comfortably on my art, and not have to rely on more conventional sources. while music is my true passion and occupation, as a life long session and performance artist for hire in addition to producer and recording engineer, i would agree that none of that lifts ne to the bar of "notable" in that regard. yet. i do, in fact, have an album ready to be released this fall, and who's to say that won't make a dent. however, in the subculture i service with my fang work, i am beyond notable. it just so happens that most of that culture avoids the mainstream at all cost, so it's no wonder there isn't more "widespread" acclaim out there. i have plenty where i need it.

7. as a final point, i will argue once again that this appears very much to have been a targeted deletion. had the issue arisen BEFORE i suggested the comment section individual google me, i wouldn't have any reason to suspect that. however, the timing of this is so directly tied to that event, and the comments that followed, that it is impossible to believe that is not the case. in regards to my business page, my attempts to establish that page failed several years ago, and i abandoned my effort mid process, so i am not at all surprised that was deleted. this page, however, is not the case. it has stood, relatively unmolested for almost a decade and a half. a sudden move to delete it demands a level of suspicion, certainly in timing if not in context of its problems. ... that being said, i can fully appreciate the rules and lack of significant enough citations on the page to be willing to bring the page into compliance and have others help me in the process. just because i'm not a household name doesn't mean i'm not notable. few people know the people behind many inventions or movements before they do their own research. Wikipedia is but a part of that, and my inclusion here is not unwarranted, even if the manner in which i was has some rough edges. i'm certainly willing to smooth them out, and i appreciate the suggestions form those above as to how to go about it.

thanks for reading :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbdnash (talk • contribs) 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete - Some comments on the above discussion... This may or may not be a targeted deletion nomination if Dnash and the nominator got into a dispute, but even so, the voters are not part of any such dispute and have voted based on evidence of notability. For the musical aspects of their career, Dnash could be listed as a producer for The Screw-Ups if that band ever qualifies for a Wikipedia article, and Dnash could be listed as one contributor to the Fingerprints soundtrack. However, neither of those are enough evidence of notability for a musician individually. Meanwhile, if Teeth By Dnash has been covered in the media, there could be an article on the company that would then have to qualify for notability for companies, but that appears to be a non-starter too. Those are possibilities, but there is not enough evidence that Dnash qualifies for an individual article here. And drop the conspiracy theories about Cancel Culture and the like. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venomous (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article currently has dedicated album reviews for a number of publications. I’m not familiar with many, but at the very least Rolling Stone and Metal Hammer are pretty mainstream publications and reliable per WP:RSMUSIC. We generally have similar thoughts on album notability, so I was a bit surprised to see that the nomination doesn’t really address this at all...? Sergecross73 msg me 03:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sergecross73: I saw them as well. The Rolling Stone review is from rollingstone.co.id and does not appear to be the Rolling Stone which is rollingstone.com. A search for Venomous Burgerkill site:rollingstone.com returned nothing. The Metal Hammer is 404 and I assumed the same. I just looked and found it at https://www.loudersound.com/reviews/burgerkill-adamantine-album-review. One review from a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rolling Stone Indonesia does appear to be a valid licensed version of Rolling Stone... or at least it was until January 2018: [49]. Richard3120 (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Are you suggesting it has two RSes then? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my opinion, yes. I'm also trying to find out more about Heavy Mag as well, which may or may not be an RS. The other sources definitely fail RS, though. Richard3120 (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was on the fence about Heavy as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources from Louder Sound and the defunct Rolling Stone Indonesia are reliable. I found some more reliable sources which talk about the album: Berita Satu, LPM Journal, Okezone, Metal as F, KapanLagi, Gigsplay and Metal Forge. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I’m still on the fence about notability, none of those sources are persuasive to me at all. They all very much so look like low level amateur bloggers, not reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense of the term. If the article is kept, it’d be more due to Rolling Stone, Louder, and Heavy, not these... Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Magician's Nephew. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frank and Helen[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is just a very long, overly detailed summary of the plot of The Magician's Nephew. We already have a much more succinct summary of the events of that book at the main article, making this a WP:REDUNDANTFORK with a very unlikely search term as its name. I suppose it could be Redirected to that book's article, but again, the name of the article is not a particularly useful search term. Rorshacma (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to being an overly detailed WP:REDUNDANTFORK of The Magician's Nephew. Maybe a redirect would be appropriate, but I agree with Rorshacma that it's an obscure search term anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another cookie-cutter, drive-by nomination whose unsupported claims don't check out. The subjects are notable being covered in detail in multiple sources such as The Cabby / King Frank; Believing in Narnia; Taking the Adventure; &c. WP:NEXIST and WP:ATD therefore apply, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 12:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has existed for 15 years. Why we have let so many articles exist in such an abyssmal state for so long is a very good question. It is entirely in universe in perspective, and since the characters are minor ones who appear in only one work even though at some analysis they should be mentioned in multiple works, but are not because of the odd order that C. S. Lewis wrote the Chronicles of Narnia. Any and all analysis that is needed can be included in the article on the book.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on The Magician's Nephew. There is just plain not enough on these characters to justify a full fledged seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to The Magician's Nephew. The topic has no stand-alone notability and, since it is completely unsourced and written in an in-universe style, it has exactly zero mergeable content. Reyk _YO! 15:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Magician's Nephew (or possibly List of The Chronicles of Narnia characters). It's unsourced fancruft. The coverage Andrew presents might be enough for a stand-alone article, but I certainly don't think there's any reason to keep the article in its current state. It's pretty heavily linked, however (maybe a lot of those links are from a template), suggesting that there's value in keeping a redirect. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Magician's Nephew, the coverage presented is not enough to pass GNG, and the article is nothing but a plot description, so it fails NOTPLOT. As a result, it contains nothing that should be merged. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the arguments that we cannot merge a bunch of unsourced fancruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per the arguments and lack of sources. Topic does not meet the WP:GNG for a reliably sourced stand-alone article, but there's probably a good redirect target somewhere. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Draft:Friend Zone 2: Dangerous Area. BD2412 T 01:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friend Zone 2: Dangerous Area[edit]

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

too soon, short article and need reference PradaSaetiew (talk) 21:47, 20 June 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 June 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep: I started the article and I'd like to clear up some points here re: article is (1) too short, (2) too soon and (3) needs more reference. For (1), I'm not sure if there is a specific amount of words needed for an article when stub articles even exist. For (2), while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this and the other TV programmes being AFD'ed were already announced including the artists who are taking part of the series which leads me to (3) the additional references (as published in Thai reliable sources) are as follows:

It would have also been better if concerns raised were discussed on the page's talk page and WP:BEFORE was done. Other articles being AFD'ed in relation to this are Devil Sister, Military of Love, The Gifted: Graduation‎, Oh My Boss, Wake Up Ladies: Very Complicated and A Tale of Thousand Stars. — Emperork (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Too soon and not Notability.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify group until release -- I think these shows will all meet notability if they debut as scheduled, especially given the references that Emperork (talk · contribs) has put together. I think the best solution would be to Draftify them as a group, and then move back into main space as they debut. I will not put the comment on all of the pages, because that seems redundant, and the nominator should have done a batched nomination in this case. Emperork, thanks for informally linking them yourself. matt91486 (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question ~~for Matt91486 (talk · contribs)~~: Do you know the premiere dates for these, or just sometime in 2020? It looks like they were announced in late 2019. If the premieres are really soon, then I think no problem on voting Keep for them — if it's going to be a while, or some of them have been delayed because of Covid (as many US shows have been) then maybe keep them in draft until there's a confirmed airdate. Do you know what the plans are? Thanks, — Toughpigs (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I personally don't know. Emperork (talk · contribs) might? I honestly would have no problem with keep either, as it's clear to me that all will meet notability criteria after premiering, I was just suggesting temporary draftifying as a potential compromise solution. matt91486 (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Matt, I'm sorry — you're right, I meant to ping Emperork. Emperork, do you know the premiere dates? — Toughpigs (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - While it doesn't have the exact date yet announced (usually they announce it few days or weeks before an existing program ends), these are expected to be premiering within 2020. The other programs that were introduced in that 2019 event already premiered: 2gether: The Series (concluded), Girl Next Room, Who Are You (concluded), The Shipper. Btw, the other AFD for Oh My Boss was already CLOSED as KEEP which included @Bradford:'s vote. — Emperork (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Okay, that works for me. The only real rationale for deletion is TOOSOON, and nobody actually knows how soon it will be. No point in deleting the articles without a rationale. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 01:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space. Too soon. Also, CoVid is disrupting schedules and these may not happen as soon as expected. Per Too Soon, CRYSTAL. Thanks, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with possibility to recreate or move to draft space. Mainly due to lack of in-depth reviews and unknown date of release. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Kbabej (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kendal's Pocket Encyclopedia[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. No RS or secondary coverage. Sources in the article are from the subject. Kbabej (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does assert notability, by stating that the book was edited and expanded to produce an American edition (an effort that a total failure would not earn). The book is described as influential [50] and has been covered in not insignificant depth [51]. I think that's a decent extent of secondary-source coverage for a casual search to turn up about a 200-year-old book. At worst, this looks to be a case for editing and merging; the article Edward Augustus Kendall would be a good target. XOR'easter (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ignoring John Pack Lambert‘s second !vote. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Parker (actress)[edit]

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

Actress who doesn't have any notable sources regarding why she is notable. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An infomercial being the subject's most notable accomplishment means there's nothing of note here. --Kbabej (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to being a notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 17:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krupesh Thacker[edit]

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

The article is a refbomb of press releases and articles which do even mention the person, has otherwise no independent coverage; might be WP:COI editing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The creator of this article is also the creator of the equally faulty Krup Music, for which Mr. Thacker is the CEO. Both are attempted promotions. This article on the man desperately tries to ref-bomb its way toward notability, but almost all the sources are reprints of his own press releases, listings of songs/films in which he was tangentially involved, and brief reports of events in which he was only listed as being present (if that much). He has managed to get himself into all the usual social media and streaming sites, but Wikipedia has tougher notability requirements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G11 as unambiguous promotion. The same user created this, created Krup Music as well as doomsdayer520 pointed out. 100% of their 57 total edits in this space relate to the name Krupesh Thacker. Their new page creations look pretty tricked-out for a new user, huh. Over on the Commons the same user has 8 edits total, all the images sourced from Krupesh Thacker or Krup Music, which the user seems to license on his behalf. This doesn't seem like an innocent mistake (smile), it seems like promotion. --Lockley (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I am the creator of the page. 1st of all thanks to the senior editors for the inputs on my work. I am not related to the person, however I am fan of this artist and the movies his record label company has done. So I decided to make page related to him and his company. Based on my research on policy guidelines, I believe that my article should get a chance to stay on Wikipedia and this profile deserves a chance for improvement by experienced editors. Here are my points based on WP:COMPOSER#1 and WP:MUSIC#10. He has credit for writing lyrics for film Family Circus (2018 film)[1] performed by notable artist Shaan. He is a lyricist as well as co-music director for film Commitment (2017 film)[2]. His song from film Gujarati Wedding In Goa is published by the record label he is not related with.[3] He has verified artist profiles Gaana [4], JioSaavn [5] YouTube [6] as well as Spotify [7]. His songs are also part of the compilation albums along with other notable artists.[8]. On checking more policies I found that his profile meets WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE(#3) too. I am very new to Wikipedia and based on feedback issue stated here, I edited the article and removed the refbomb of press release kind of article and event articles from regional language that mentioned his name. I also removed the details that looks like promotional. I will do same for my another article about his company Krup Music to make it justifiable with the Wikipedia standards. However me creating two pages connected to same person doesn't take away his credits and work as an artist. Kind request to all to verify his credits. If still my work is found to violate the guidelines, I would appreciate the best resolution by seniors. MovieLoverFan (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fair and dignified response. I will assume good faith and retract any accusations about Mr. Thacker trying to promote himself. Unfortunately, even though the musician has valid appearances on compilation albums and the like, all he has is basic credits for being present. Self-created or paid promotional announcements and videos are also insufficient. See Wikipedia's rule on significant and reliable coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your understanding and guidance. Well he is not just in compilation albums. There are three movies each has one song lyrics by him. I gave reference link to all the movies. I also on my research found that his songs are in top charts and added links to those in notes section of main article. I found a IMDB link to a movie where he is mentioned as a producer.[1]. Is this enough reference to add his credit as a movie producer? There is one strong reference article on his journey and life by a ABP news paper. The article is not visible on the news portal however I could retrieve the article from Dailyhunt. I tried to add the link but somehow Dailyhunt link is not accepted. Any help will be appreciated. I also removed many news articles where he is mentioned for his social work activities. I am not sure if it will make sense to his profile as an artist or not. Kindly guide. I can add a section about his social work with appropriate link. You can check those in the 1st version of the page. I am very confused and reading all the policies to get my work as a editor welcomed by the community. Thanks again for the help. MovieLoverFan (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article creator has specified they have no WP:COI, but even after assuming that in good faith, the article is mostly promotional and not enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. While I appreciate the creator justifying his stance, their vote shouldn't be a part of it, only comments. Coderzombie (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article creators are free to vote at AFD but their arguments are often given less weight by the closer of the discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Well I didn't know that I can't vote here. Is it so? Also I was planning to create more articles of music artists based on the policy mentioned. This artist fits WP:COMPOSER#1 and WP:NMUSIC#10 as he is the lyricist of 3 songs from 3 movies where notable singers have sung his songs. The movie songs were also on top charts by reputed newspaper based on public poll as well as on JioSaavn and Gaana (largest music streaming services of India). Kindly help with the editing further if you see any promotional word. So I can save my article and establish myself on Wikipedia. Thanks again.MovieLoverFan (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets WP:NBOOK. (non-admin closure) ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prada and Prejudice[edit]

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

No indication this meets WP:NBOOK. No in-depth independent sources found on a search, including of Newspapers.com. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. There's a review in Publisher's Weekly, and then a few blog reviews. I don't think the blog reviews (see here and here, among others) rise to the level of meeting WP:NBOOK criteria number 1, though. Criteria 2-5 don't apply. If someone can find another RS to supplement the Publisher's Weekly source that isn't a blog or press release, I'll amend my !vote. --Kbabej (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Based on the sources Spicy found, I am amending my previous !vote. --Kbabej (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found three other reviews on Gale: ^[3]^[4]^[5] The reviews are fairly brief, but I think there is just about enough here to pass WP:NBOOK. Spicy (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.bollywoodmdb.com/movies/cast-crew/apna-ghar/9869
^ https://www.cinestaan.com/movies/apna-ghar-2743
^ Miller, Donna L. "Prada and Prejudice." Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, vol. 53, no. 6, 2010, p. 523. Gale General OneFile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A221600797/GPS?u=wikipedia&sid=GPS&xid=00d1cd9e. Accessed 14 July 2020. doi:10.1598/JAAL.53.6.9
^ Schultz, Jennifer. "Hubbard, Mandy. Prada & Prejudice." School Library Journal, vol. 55, no. 7, July 2009, p. 85. Gale In Context: Biography, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A203954504/GPS?u=wikipedia&sid=GPS&xid=c6296d7a. Accessed 14 July 2020.
^ Cooper, Ilene. "Prada & Prejudice." Booklist, vol. 105, no. 18, 15 May 2009, p. 53. Gale In Context: Biography, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A200916077/GPS?u=wikipedia&sid=GPS&xid=58544196. Accessed 14 July 2020.

Weak keep based upon reviews above, there's just about enough to scrape past WP:NBOOK criteria 1 (though the reviews aren't incredibly in-depth). Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: multiple reviews in reliable sources are sufficient to satisfy WP:NB #1. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a short but decent review section. This could easily be expanded into a decent article. Archrogue (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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