< 21 June	23 June >

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turan Valizada[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the basis that he has played for Neftçi PFK, and and the Azerbaijan U-19 national team. Since the Azerbaijan Premier League is not fully professional, Valizada's appearances in that league do not satisfy WP:NFOOTY, and the guideline explicitly excludes youth level football as a source of notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was also a capitan of the Azerbaijan U-19 and U-17 national teams and played in the qualifying matches of the European Championship. ^[1]. --TiFFOZi iz Baku (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The player fails GNG and NFOOTBALL as the Azerbaijan league isn't a league that isn't professional. HawkAussie (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sidmach Technologies[edit]

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

The organization falls short of WP:ORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search shows zero evidence of notability. Asides mentions in primary sources I can’t seem to find anything of substance to prove notability.Celestina007 (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - confirmed paid-for spam per off-wiki evidence. MER-C 11:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Em-mustapha ^talk 13:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of words ending with -uck[edit]

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

I don't see how this meets WP:LISTN. Adam9007 (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have found zero reliable sources that discuss the concept of "words ending with uck", thus this is a complete failure of the WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yuck this article; it isn't needed, doesn't meet LISTN (and the five-letter words are incomplete). Nate • (chatter) 21:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck. Call me a schmuck, but I'm dumbstruck by this muck. It should be struck. pburka (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huck it far, far away. It doth suck so badly I want to upchuck. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to being an encyclopedic topic. Pichpich (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDICT. Chuck this muck. Ajf773 (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we kept this article, we would establish a precedent that we need to have a list of words for every word ending in the English language. That would be tens, if not hundreds of thousands of words, taking an extremely long time to do. Pointless. MrSwagger21 (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page creation run amok. --Lockley (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you mean amuck. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete WP:NOT Lightburst (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There are legitimate articles on words, but no reason to create articles groping words by spelling.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not sure what is the use of this article , WP:LISTN. Alex-h (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is better covered at wikt:Rhymes:English/ʌk. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities between Christian and Pagan Mythology[edit]

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

Previously expired Speedy Deletion tag - originally flagged WP:A10 (presumably for the existence of Christianity and paganism & Jesus in comparative mythology) Zakhx150 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR consider draftifying/userspaceifying. Currently this is an incomplete article that does not do what its title sets out to do, and not, you know, in a way that merits keeping it in mainspace while waiting for it to be improved. I wouldn't be surprised if there were reliable sources on this topic given the entire existence of comparative mythology, and it's possible that looking into these sources might improve our comparative mythology article or possibly even justify spinning out a new one. However, the current article is incomplete, and appears to be based at least partly on original research (analysis of Egyptian primary sources that a user thinks are similar to Christianity, rather than using the analysis of a reliable source). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Subway Surfers#Subway Surfers: The Animated Series. Sandstein 10:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subway Surfers: The Animated Series[edit]

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

Fails WP:TVSERIES and WP:GNG. - Harsh 20:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC) - Harsh 20:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 20:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 20:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nate • (chatter) 21:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any serious coverage, ping me if better sources are presented. Right now this fails WP:NMEDIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Subway Surfers#Subway Surfers: The Animated Series - I agree with the nom and above that this series does not have the sources showing that it is independently notable. Additionally, the article is completely unsourced and thus has no information that should be preserved. However, as the series is already covered at the main article for Subway Surfers, a redirect to that section would be a valid redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Animation Magazine gives it ample coverage at https://www.animationmagazine.net/top-stories/subway-surfers-series-makes-youtube-debut-june-1/ as does Animation World Network https://www.awn.com/news/subway-surfers-animated-shorts-series-premieres Two reliable sources giving them significant coverage is enough to pass the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 16:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Both of these sources seem to just be copies of the actual press release that SYBO released on the show. Though the link on their actual official site is not working, you can still find other mirrors of the press release elsewhere, such as here. As you can see, the Animation World Network link above is just a straight mirror/copy of the press release, and the Animation Magazine is just the press release that they reworded or rearranged a few of the sentences, but is largely also just a copy of the official press release. Rorshacma (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Subway Surfers#Subway Surfers: The Animated Series. Dream Focus posted sources, but didn't check whether they have independent writing (something that is a part of WP:GNG and required). Both sources, and what AWN source even says directly, is sourced in what SYBO Games (the developers of the game) has said. Both also have almost the same content, which leads me to believe they are just WP:ROUTINE sources reiterating what the press release says. WP:ATD redirect is the best thing to do here, but this series does not meet WP:GNG on it's own. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Subway Surfers#Subway Surfers: The Animated Series as a valid alternative to deletion, and a plausible search term. Press releases don't constitute "significant coverage", but at least we can maintain what exists should significant coverage ever come available in the future, and the search term I can see as valid. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 18:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a WP:CHEAP WP:ATD per the points made above. The key points are covered WP:WITHIN the larger article sufficiently. It would be good to have the source transferred to the larger article to help with WP:V--at least that listicle appears to be independent, although only a passing mention. -2pou (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT These YouTube episodes are six minutes long so probably not given much coverage anywhere. Dream Focus 03:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ishirō Honda. Speedy redirect per nom comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ishirō Honda filmography[edit]

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

Have restored the content on Ishirō Honda article, there wasn't any consensus on the talk page to content fork, this becomes redundant due to restored content. Govvy (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy, why not just redirect it back to the main article? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: lol, didn't think of that, now I come to think of it I feel silly now, I don't even know how to close this to do that. :/ Govvy (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, don't feel silly, I was thinking maybe there was a reason not to do it that I didn't see. I'll speedy close this and redirect :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otto von Wernherr[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:GNG. I have found no mentions in reliable sources, only Madonna's fansites. Less Unless (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. It's a measure of the lack of success of Mr. Von Wernherr's singing career that after nearly four decades he's still best known for the backing music he has created for three short vocal recordings by a then unknown Madonna, and has spent all this time endlessly reworking the same three sets of vocals into "new" songs. And even then, these songs are still virtually unknown outside of Madonna fans. He's probably had more success as an actor: he had a role of reasonable size in the 1982 film Liquid Sky, and very minor roles in Perfect Strangers (1984) and The Package (1989). But there's no in-depth coverage of his roles in these films that would pass WP:NACTOR. Richard3120 (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a backing vocalist who later becomes extremely well known does not make one notable, nor does trying to exploit that past connection for monetary gain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the two voters above. It is curious that the article does not mention his acting, which comes a little closer to notability but not quite. As for his brief and fleeting musical connection with Madonna, his periodic attempts to flog that minor brush with greatness decades later get minor notice on music blogs and the like, but that is not even close to the requirements for notability for a musician. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yaarana (1981 film). (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 00:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chhookar Mere Man Ko Kiya Toone Kya Ishaara[edit]

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

Non notable songs that fails WP:NSINGLE. Signature 13:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Signature 13:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yaarana (1981 film): Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Until we can have a well sourced article about the subject. Wareon (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cthulhu Mythos deities. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Lumley deities. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Ashton Smith deities[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. All current sources are primary. A WP:BEFORE search turns up unreliable websites, primary source books, a self-published source, and one article on this subject on Tor.com. More is needed to demonstrate this passes WP:LISTN. Hog Farm (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication that this bloated in-universe list of deities that just so happen to have been created by a specific author passes LISTN. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION and WP:LISTN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Hold This list ties into List of Great Old Ones, a higher-ranking topic which is also currently under discussion. I ask to hold off a decision here, until one is reached about the List of Great Old Ones, and treat it as a subtopic of List of Great Old Ones/Cthulhu Mythos deities. Daranios (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of these deities are mentioned in third party sources. The works of H.P. Lovecraft have achieved a great deal of third party coverage, as have some of those fictional creations. But once you get this far from the source, it becomes impossible to find third party coverage for these minor characters. If someone wants to add a proportional amount of primary-sourced material to another notable article about the fiction itself, that would be the way to do it, if a suitable and notable target can be found. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is not correct, I could find a number of short mentions to longer statements in third party sources looking for Abhoth and Tsathoggua in Google Scholar, some of these are however in foreign languages: Playing with Power, L’univers fantastique de Clark Ashton Smith, Icons of Horror and the Supernatural, Slime Dynamics, Enciclopedia de los Mitos de Cthulhu. And there are more. And that's not yet looking for every entry in this list. I as those who wanted to delete to reconsider based on the number of sources. Daranios (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 04:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Guido Pietroni[edit]

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

GNG fail, and it's also basically promotion. Unsourced.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It also might be worth mentioning that the subject seems to be the only author on the site art-insider.com, which triggers our spam blacklist. An article being promotional is not a reason for deletion, but it is a reason for a more skeptical inquiry at AfD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable producer for either music or films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noting also the copyright violation concern. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vue sur la baie de Tanger[edit]

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

This article is currently not suitable for an encyclopedia so I am nominating it for deletion. The text is in very poor English and describes Matisse's stay in Tangier rather than the painting itself. It is also unsourced, an orphan and has no image and no equivalent in French Wikipedia. The subject is likely to be notable but this article is not a useful starting point. TSventon (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~We have an article on the painting already, at Window at Tangier.~~ This text is unsourced, full of POV statements, poorly phrased, and adds nothing of value to that. --Lockley (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Lockley in case a redirect is suggested, Window at Tangier seems to be a different painting with a slightly different title held by Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow rather than Musée de Grenoble. TSventon (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right you are! I stand corrected & should have looked a bit harder. --Lockley (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Amkgp It's a painting of a scene in Africa, yet the only list you add is the French one! Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, Thanks for pointing that error ~ Amkgp 💬 02:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Painting' = visual arts too Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Would be a notable subject, I expect. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 02:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced article apparently translated poorly from a foreign language (the English text is ungrammatical). The subject may be notable, but nothing from this article needs to be kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. TSventon (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. TSventon (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyright violation. I suspect the article is a (machine?) translation of the first chapter of Matisse, Henri (1999). Matisse: lignes et couleurs du Maroc (in French). Paris: Institut du Monde Arabe. ISBN 978-2-84306-059-5. OCLC 43319171., which begins : "Le 27 janvier 1912, Matisse s'embarque à Marseille en direc-tion de Tanger. Il va y rester deux mois et demi" Vexations (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjith Karunakaran[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, a biography that fails WP:GNG, No independent coverage in a reliable source Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. = paul2520 (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fills a bkacground position on the business side of film production. We would need way better sourcing than this to show someone in this postion was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also has promotional language. Eternal Shadow Talk 04:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omni Interlocken Resort[edit]

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

No claim of notability, Sources are all self-published or the Emporis database entry. I didn't see anything in the first 10 pages of a google search except reservation sites. If there is any independent in-depth coverage, it may be difficult to find. This appears to be a WP:MILL hotel. MB 05:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MB 05:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am reading this article, but it's seem to be notable or not? And had only 3 sources - BeamAlexander (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – nothing to indicate this hotel/resort meets WP:N. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a hotel, supported by a listing and primary sources. Nothing in the article text indicates notability (even a "distinct green roof") and searches are finding nothing better than listings and mundane passing mentions. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 17:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Dixon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBADMINTON. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable badminton player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep several secondary sources writing about here, borderline enough to meet GNG. Few examples: 1, 2, 3 SportsOlympic (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all trivial mentions of the subject and do not meet GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The third source is more than a trivial mention. To see an interview with here here. Many of her mathches are "trivial mentioned" in main secondary sources articles at Jersey Evening Post, nice magazine, lboro, can lists +/- 50 more of those examples.SportsOlympic (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? The JCG article is written by Dixon. It is not about her. It is neither independent nor in depth coverage. The Jersey Evening Post ones are mere mentions. 50 such examples won't help. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet the notability criteria for badminton players and all I'm not finding the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. The BWF website shows her with no victories in any international competition. First match losses in women's singles, women's doubles, and mixed doubles at the Commonwealth Games do not show notability. She is currently not ranked in any world rankings, even though the BWF has rankings for 1243 female singles players.[1] My search found just routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Le Tissier[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBADMINTON. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable badminton player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meeting GNG. Athlete in several secondary sources: ITV, BBC, shropshistar, Financial Express and more. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all trivial mentions of the subject and do not meet GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You probably didn’t check the sources. The ITV page is especially about her and they made a video about her. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas non-notable athlete. --Lockley (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NBAD and is currently unranked in the world. The only possible significant coverage I could find of her is the ITV video, which is one of a series highlighting every Channel Island athlete who would be competing at the Commonwealth Games. Merely competing there does not meet the notability criteria for any sport and when I click on the video I get an error saying the video is "unavailable" so I can't judge its contents. Even if it provided significant coverage it is not enough to meet WP:GNG. All other coverage is routine sports reporting and/or passing mentions. Papaursa (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Video is working, is a 3 minutes interview with her, meeting GNG guideliness. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not working on my machine and interviews generally don't count towards notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable badminton player. Not even ranked. Hzh (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the coverage from the sources posted seem to concur that she exists but there is little coverage beyond that. Without a ranking or any notable actions/commentary it just doesn't warrant an article. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 18:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Papaursa. Pace User:SportsOlympic, we need two substantial RSs to justify inclusion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WikiProject Badminton folks have a well-established, well thought through basis to the WP:NBAD criteria and Chloe doesn't meet those criteria. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:57, 1 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. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Coombs-Goodfellow[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBADMINTON. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meeting GNG. Named in secondary source. 2 examples: Jersey Evening Post, BBC. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all trivial mentions of the subject and do not meet GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the short article of the Jersey Evening Post, a few sentences are about her. Also see her short bio here SportsOlympic (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack the significant coverage needed for an article to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if it's not enough, next to this article in the Jersey Evening Post; here another one completely about her. Even her name in the title and not only writing about her results but also private life: Badminton: Kerry's crown at the Gilson. Next to these two, see 63 Jersey Evening Post articles. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter how many article the Jersey Evening Post, a local paper, writes about her since WP:GNG says they only count as 1 article--"Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The PTL bio is not independent. Papaursa (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Island Games are not a major competition and therefore fail to show notability. Merely competing at the Commonwealth Games also fails to show notability. She fails to meet WP:NBAD and I don't believe the coverage is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see all the articles in the jerseyeveningpost about her, many of them even the headlines are about her. SportsOlympic (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the part of the GNG that I quoted above that says all of the Jersey Evening Post articles count as 1 source? Papaursa (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although she has some notable results, there isn't enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 18:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Just short of GNG per User:Papaursa. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:46, 1 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. Sandstein 10:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coca Cola Tu[edit]

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

Non notable songs that fails WP:NSINGLE. Signature 13:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Signature 13:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The song has received some coverage and I found some reliable sources about the song: [2], [3], [4] and [5]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSINGLE. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Song seemingly fails all requirements of WP:NSINGLE. Delete unless information to the contrary is provided. Runforlimit505 (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not going to relist for a 3rd time; other then the nomination there’s only 1 !vote and little discussion going on. (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 15:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dheere Dheere[edit]

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

Non notable songs that fails WP:NSINGLE. Signature 13:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Signature 13:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/move into a potential article for the song "Dheere Dheere Se" by the original writers Nadeem–Shravan. The current article is about a single released without an overarching album; from this standpoint, I do not believe the article is without merit. Secondly, there seems to be a reasonable amount of noteworthy coverage of the song itself; the case for keeping this page, however, could be bolstered if the article also went into detail about the Nadeem–Shravan song from 1990. That would introduce even more notable coverage, including potential coverage contemporary to the original song. For a successful model of a similar article, see "I Think We're Alone Now" by Tommy James & the Shondells, a song covered by Tiffany, among others. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The current article, by the way, does have some prose and bias issues, and could use further copyediting. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that the subject of the article meets the notability guidelines for academics. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Zhang (Operations Research Professor)[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, fails WP:NACADEMIC Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article is currently written, this subject does not appear to be notable. ElKevbo (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've trimmed the poorly-sourced material and added sourcing from his cv and an academic society. I think his citation record [6] is strong enough for WP:PROF#C1 and as head of two major sections within INFORMS he has a plausible case for #C6. He is not currently a Fellow of INFORMS (if he were, we would also have #C3) but that seems a likely eventuality. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's clear none of the deletion advocates bothered to check this academic's extensive publication record, which includes several highly cited papers and appears to included several favorably reviewed technical books. This is exactly the type of subject that Wikipedia ought to cover. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, until I located his Google Scholar page, the citation record was hard to find among all the other publications by other people named Dan Zhang. His cv and home page do not list any books, and I don't see any on the GS page; which ones do you have in mind? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand the article to add this information and I'm happy to reevaluate my position. ElKevbo (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - In other words, you reject our notability policy, which makes clear that notability is established by available sources, not those in the article at any particular moment. See also WP:RUSHDELETE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - In fact, before ElKevbo wrote that, I did trim the self-sourced cruft from the article and then re-expand it to include the information I included in my keep comment. (That is, the links to Google Scholar and his stints as head of two sections of INFORMS.) So, ElKevbo, did you re-evaluate? Or pre-re-evaluate? Or whatever it is one does when one responds to something that happened before you even left your response? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for pinging me. The article is improved but I'm afraid that my opinion is unchanged. I encourage those who judge this subject notable to please add that information to the article (or don't as it looks like there will be enough "keep" !votes to overrule my "delete"). ElKevbo (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein & citations. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe the C1 case for this academic in a medium citation field. I'm not sure C6 is quite met, but the progress towards it help support. David Eppstein has greatly improved the rough state of the article – nice work finding the GS profile. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My keep here is without reservation, but I do want to comment that users JglynchatCU and Kyda6468 have been creating a large number of articles of uneven quality about CU Leeds faculty; Kyda6468 shows signs of WP:UPE, and I'm not sure about JglynchatCU. The topics mostly look notable, but WP:BOGOF may apply. Volunteers may want to keep this in mind for the next 5 articles about Leeds faculty. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 19:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Nasiri[edit]

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

This article was introduced, barely referenced, as an autobiography. The editor is inexperienced.

Draft:Ehsan Nasiri exists and may, with work, pass our acceptance criteria.

I suggest directing the editor at the Draft: article, the more so since that will assist with his obvious WP:COI and deletion of this main space article without prejudice to future re-creation Fiddle Faddle 16:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads much closer to a CV than an encyclopedia article. No actual sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a promotional autobiography that is very close to a G11 speedy deletion candidate. It is mainly original research from the subject and therefore fails WP:V as well as WP:PROMO. Also none of his films have English Wikipedia articles so that is a bad sign, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 03:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fattydove[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG - really struggling to find much in the way of independent coverage for Fattydove, it seems to be a fairly generic Chinese brand of SSD drives. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More 4 Me (film)[edit]

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

Not notable. Fuddle (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contested due to notability of film. More information and cited sources have been added to the wiki article page to support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmbizfollower (talk • contribs) 12:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems like an SPA is creating articles centered around the director of this film. See User:Newyorked, Lincoln Fenner and Creation Box Films. I'd say that this film barely passes notability, but I might suggest deleting the articles on Lincoln Fenner and Creation Box Films. Angryapathy (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 18:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 16:00, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Article is in terrible shape but there does seem to be some sources here which are reliable.★Trekker (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —Matthew - (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of films: A[edit]

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

This, and the other lists of films indexed by first alphabetical letter in their titles, appear to be indiscriminate in nature. Inclusion of films in these lists appears to be self-evident, based on the films' titles, rather than being based on reliable sources with inline citations for each item. See WP:LISTCRIT. —Matthew - (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

—Matthew - (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't understand this nomination at all. It seems to be claiming that alphabetizing is contrary to policy. postdlf (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: I'm claiming that lists of films by alphabetical order do seem contrary to established guidelines (see WP:LISTCRIT), as they appear to be indiscriminate and not based on reliable sources. —Matthew - (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating your claim is not making it more clear or compelling. Would not the film itself be the most reliable source for its own title? Or are you suggesting that we need a second source, like "according to Roger Ebert, the title of Citizen Kane is Citizen Kane"? postdlf (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why do we even need inline citations for these kinds of lists? Its common sense. Java Hurricane 16:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JavaHurricane: See WP:LISTCRIT. Why do we even need these kinds of lists at all, ~~especially given that categories can essentially accomplish the same thing~~? —Matthew - (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MatthewHoobin, common sense before LISTN. There's no reason why this should even be deleted. Java Hurricane 16:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JavaHurricane: The reason I am proposing that they be deleted is because they appear to violate existing guidelines. According to WP:COMMONSENSE, "even if a contribution 'violates' the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution." Can you demonstrate why these articles should be considered "good" contributions to Wikipedia? Do you have any reasons why they should not be deleted, aside from... just because? —Matthew - (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDUP. But maybe you want to have a go at categories too since they automatically alphabetize. postdlf (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, completely nonsensical nomination. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes in Manchukuo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I feel that this article should be deleted for several reasons. First of all, no book has ever been written specifically on Japanese war crimes in Manchukuo, which calls into question whether it is a good subject for an article. Though the article does list crimes, some of these crimes didn't take place in Manchukuo, such as the use of chemical weapons, and some were arguably not "war" crimes because (1.) Manchukuo itself was not a war zone when the crimes were taking place and because (2.) some of these crimes, like the drug trafficking for example, didn't begin during a war. It's good that we have articles on Unit 731 and Khabarovsk War Crime Trials, but neither of these things is clearly distinguishable as relating to the specific subject of "war crimes in Manchukuo". Finally, note that the last time this article was nominated for deletion[7], 5 supported and only 1 opposed (which was inexplicably deemed "no consensus". Hko2333 (talk) 15:35, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. For example, see Manchuria, Japanese war crimes in in the Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Query. Surely the fact that there were several notable war crimes trials related to crimes committed in Manchukuo implies the notability of the crimes themselves in some sense? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. b uidhe 08:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously, per Andrew Davidson's link to a reliable tertiary source that has a detailed entry on the subject and the need for an overall summary of the activities of Unit 731 and the affiliated prison units, along with US cover-up of the crimes, Soviet war crimes trials etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article cited by Andrew could be justification to merge this article with Unit 731. Note that the article cited by Andrew describes one and only one war crime committed in Manchukuo, the development of biological weapons at Unit 731. Literally the entire article deals exclusively with Unit 731. On this basis, we could argue that the two topics are identical and thus merge them.Hko2333 (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The war crimes trials related to Japanese war crimes. There were no war crimes trials specifically for "war crimes in Manchukuo", so it seems like an arbitrary category.Hko2333 (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were no warcrimes trials specifically for the Holocaust in Slovakia, guess that article should be deleted too. b uidhe 09:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The bibliography of that article suggests, however, that books have been written on the Holocaust in Slovakia. By contrast, no books have ever been written on war crimes in Manchukuo. It's true that one short article has been published on the subject, but that article mentions only one war crime, Unit 731, so why not merge then? War crimes in Manchukuo is a topic akin to, say, War criminals from Texas. It's true that we could make a Wikipedia article by compiling information on all the war criminals who happened to come from Texas, but should we? Since no book has discussed war criminals from Texas as a discrete category, why not include the information in other articles? Hko2333 (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natali Thanou[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This survived an earlier AfD mostly on the assertion that the subject had been in "OK" magazine and very few editors contributed. As it stands there is no evidence of notability for a sometime model and composer of a Eurovision entry that was not accepted as her country's nomination. There is an interview with her and some promotional pieces. She features in many Google search results but with nothing of any notability. This is simply a puff piece. Fails WP:GNG still. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that the Greek Playmate title she got is an important award. Bisides that, there is no evidence of notability. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the original proposal. This person is not encyclopaedic. Glucken123 (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Kahn[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. Coverage of him mainly consists of an interview or two and a passing mention in the LA Times for one screenwriting credit. The Verge 's review of the film calls him a relative unknown. None of that coverage establishes him as a notable comedian or screenwriter. The article claims there have been more features, but a before search indicates those features don't exist. He has his own website, but nothing there indicates notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the indepth reliable sourcing need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Lescova[edit]

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

Reason BenjaminSky (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC) The article does not contain any citations backed up by reliable resources[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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Blasters Youth and Academy[edit]

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

Youth teams are not notable, and don't pass WP:GNG. In addition, article was created by a sockpuppet (but not G5 eligible in my opinion since others have also edited the page), which is even more of a reason why this article shouldn't be kept Joseph2302 (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nominator is not quite correct, youth teams can be notable - although this is not. Giant Snowman 17:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if youth teams in rare cases can be notable, their fan clubs generally are not, and this is no exception. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG Spiderone 09:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage is mainly 'routine' and / or primary. Not enough to get it past GNG. Eagleash (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of anything that would rise to the level of exception that would make this youth club notable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should be merged with Kerala Blasters FC Reserves and make it Kerala Blasters FC Reserves and Academy. Coderzombie (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is about to delete Kerala Blasters FC Reserves should be renamed into Kerala Blasters FC Reserves and Academy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahoodu (talk • contribs) 09:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Parker[edit]

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

Non notable BLP. Sources include links to subject's personal website. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 15:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 15:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. She played a small role as a student on a widely used statistical package, sva, has high Google Scholar citations for that one thing, and won a student award. But she hasn't become an academic, and that's not enough for academic notability by itself, so we need to look for general notability instead for her post-academic career. The only evidence we have of this is this interview, which is in-depth, independent, and reliably published. But it's only one source and we need multiple sources like that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass any inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of breeding scheme simulation software[edit]

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

List article where none of the entries are independently notable - as far as I can tell none have their own Wikipedia page. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Had this watchlisted for awhile to figure out what to do with it, but I just couldn't find anything that contributed to their notability in the field either. On a more personal note having a scientific background in crop genetics, I haven't even heard of half of these. I really doubt they'd be of encyclopedic value for normal readers, and the only people using these would be other scientists or maybe students who have other avenues to sort these out (i.e., WP:NOTJOURNAL) Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTLINKFARM. Agricolae (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definite WP:NOT problems here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and WP:LISTN, many different reasons. Ajf773 (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 💬 15:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instagram egg[edit]

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

At the previous nomination, many users argued that the claim that this will not be significant in the future is a violation of WP:RAPID. Well, it's been more than a year, and the topic has shown to lack the significant coverage necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. A Google search limited to only results from the last year brings up links to Instagram posts and opinion pieces on personal blogs, with nearly nothing else. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC) + minor edit --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 14:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A brief look at the sources on this article shows that this got a lot of coverage (Variety, Fox, Washington Post, Time Magazine, New York Times, the list goes on) and was mentioned in an academic paper. Notability isn't temporary. If a subject has been notable at any point in time, it remains notable. Yes, the coverage was mostly over a 2 month period (Jan-Feb 2019), but the same could be said for almost any piece of media. Besides, there are still articles being written about it today, like this article a mere 5 days ago [8], which shows that it does have enduring notability. Separate to any guideline, I think that any piece of media that got nearly 55 million people to respond to it should have a place in an encyclopedia. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- While notability is not temporary, I believe WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED are applicable here. The only sources that have spoken about this of late are tabloids and the like, not the the type of material that generally satisfies WP:RS. Although, I was unaware of the academic paper. I had initially searched for such a paper on Google Scholar, but the results page did not include any papers written about the subject itself. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 15:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: An academic talked about it on the website of a university: [9] but it wasn't actually in a paper minus one rather unsubstantial paragraph from the Kyiv National University. However, I think that the fact articles on this subject are still being written up to 5 days ago when this happened in late 2018-early 2019 shows that it has received sustained coverage. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that record-breaking events are guaranteed to get some continuing coverage, even if it's "X became the most-liked post ever, unseating the Instagram egg from three years ago", the way that coverage referenced in this article mentions that the egg beat Kylie Jenner's record. That keeps this content relevant for the future. Even without that, coverage in The New York Times, Forbes and Time would be enough to demonstrate notability anyway. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NEXIST. It has received a lot of coverage, per reasons above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. For example, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandman Animation[edit]

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

Article has no sources at all. Vexations (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nuna International BV[edit]

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

After reviewing the sources, both provided and what I could find on a search query all I was able to find was Primary Sources there is a lot of information about the company from the company and a number of lawsuits that do not have secondary coverage about patent disputes but nothing that indicates this organization meets notability guidelines. VViking_TalkEdits 13:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG. Ealuscerwen (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raulo Christ[edit]

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

The lack of notability of the subject hasn't changed since I PRODed the article. The only source that even mentions the subject is Genius, which itself appears to be unreviewed user-generated content. Username⁶⁸⁹² 13:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Username⁶⁸⁹² 13:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly comes short of having multiple 3rd party reliable source references.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably an attempted promotion for a musician who has no significant coverage in reliable sources. Two of the article's main editors, GeorgeOwell and Tsirhcoluar, have only ever worked on this article. They are the ones who linked this article to Wikipedia's series on Jesus Christ not just once but THREE times. Worship the real one, not this self-anointed imitator. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: I've blocked the article creator, GeorgeOwell, and Tsirhcoluar for Confirmed socking.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted under G11. User blocked for promotional editing. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Allan Holmes[edit]

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

Not a notable politician. Very, very little coverage in media - mainly a passing mention. Subject's web site is "under construction". Looks like the article has been created purely for marketing and advertising purposes. OXYLYPSE (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OXYLYPSE (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Stout[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The argument made in the last AFD was that the huffpo piece and chicago tribune piece established notability. I fail to see how this is true since both pieces are contributor pieces, which are UGC. The rest of the sources were blatantly unreliable or just event listings and even the FB101 source is super questionable and looks user submitted. Aside from that, I can find no actual in depth coverage and based on my search, the sources I can find are also black hat seo. Praxidicae (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete with my compliments to his publicist, who has constructed quite the house of cards. None of the solo shows are in legit galleries. All the group shows are in art fairs, and don't specify which fairs they were in (Art Basel Miami Beach, is essentially 20+ fairs that cluster around the main fair, some of which are legit, others not so much). And most importantly, as the first deletion discussion covered, the sources are all PROMO. Forbes India [10] is "Brand Connect" with this disclaimer "Disclaimer: The views, suggestions and opinions expressed here are the sole responsibility of the experts. No Forbes India journalist was involved in the writing and production of this article." Foreign Policy [11] is not Foreign Policy (magazine), but is rather foreignpolicyi.org -- check out that trailing "i" at the end of the domain name. Pretty sneaky. He has some celebrity endorsements, though these won't make up N, and the most famous amongst them are know for endorsing products for fees. If he actually develops a legit celebrity following, and gets legit coverage for that, then he might end up meeting GNG, but that's not the case here. Theredproject (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete talk about unreliable sources. A search only finds a pile of extremely exaggerated reports of his success. For example, I don't believe that "Marko Stout is Currently New York’s Hottest Selling Artist". I am also very dubious that he is the Next Andy Warhol. The claim that Marko Stout Reinvents Pop Art With His Urban Cool Provocative Imagery and Critically-Acclaimed Collection also seems a little exaggerated. Whoever is being paid to write headlines like "Marko Stout: A Pop Artist Contravention the Rules" (the URL for this headline triggered the Spam blacklist) is probably being paid too much. And so on. The majority of the articles covering him are obviously paid PR. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, "He is now onboard with Time Bulletin as a free lance (sic) writer." Vexations (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations yes, but "All of the art depicted by this amazing artist screams narrative story fully bound with astounding colors, scarped by tenacious detail and ending with a touch of drama"... and "He is only given the title of a strong. And competitive urban artist only recently." ... "And enjoys a cut-out version of the Rockstar looks. His looks, the long stripped apparels." and from the same source, "Other than that, by visiting his official website you can come around the virtual library. Where all of his work can be seen. And analyzed while also coming around other celebrity testimonials there."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had posted some lengthy analysis of the sources earlier, but it's really quite simple. All the sources are clearly promotional. Fails both GNG and NARTIST. Vexations (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of paid promotional placements does not constitute the indepdent, reliable 3rd party secondary indepth coverage that is needed to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hate to pile-on but the level to which this subject has gone to promote and fabricate their notability is remarkable. I am sure we will see re-incarnations of this BLP, and thus hopefully this AfD will serve as a marker to dig deeper and be aware of how faked their notability is. Should probably WP:SALT? Britishfinance (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG and NARTIST fail. Netherzone (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket South Africa's Solidarity Cup[edit]

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

This tournament is an exhibition tournament, which is not notable. It's generating a bit of press coverage at the moment, but only routine coverage. Clear case of notability is not inherited, as some of the possible players are notable, but that doesn't make the tournament itself notable. Finally, it's been indefinitely postponed, so no evidence that it will even actually happen. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; "indefinitely postponed" all too often is Cricket Board code for "cancelled". If it happens, and if it generates enough coverage to be notable, then we can look at creating an article at that point. Harrias ^talk 12:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cricket South Africa have said it's been postponed before it has even begun. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Short form cricket (or delete) – per WP:EVENT the bizarre format certainly makes it unusual enough to deserve attention. However, while there seems to be enough coverage and information to pass much of WP:CRYSTAL (i.e. the content is verifiable) the event is not "almost certain to take place". While cancelled events can be worthy of inclusion, in this case there is also a lack of depth of coverage. What there is can be adequately summarised elsewhere and Short form cricket seems like a good home for it. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose a merge for now, as the format seems to have been made up specifically for this match. If the match takes places later on, I think a mention of three team cricket would then be appropriate. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like the event is cancelled and coverage is routine but not anything particularly remarkable. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 18:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; in case anyone misses it, a new date has been fixed [12]. Doesn't prompt me to change my !vote above, and don't expect others will either as it still falls below the threshold for a standalone article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:55, 1 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Doğan[edit]

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

The subject doesn't seem to be notable. I think we must delete it. Baran Ahmet 10.55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when your best known role was in a non-notable film you are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Johnpacklambert:, I agree with you. Thank you for your comment. Loves and Respects from Turkey. Baran Ahmet (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I am in shock that there was a kind comment here. Thank you for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Baran Ahmet (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to be notable. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources with independent coverage on him, but I'll be glad if others also take the effort and see what they can find. Keivan.f^Talk 08:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, it does not seem notable so deletion is the great way, the sources are not completely dependable. Tahaaleem (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Baran Ahmet & also Precisely what Johnpacklambert said. Celestina007 (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Eternal Shadow Talk 00:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Tennis Showdown[edit]

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

Non-notable exhibition tournament. It's not an official ATP event, just a warm up event with a few notable individuals. WP:NOTINHERITED certainly applies here Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm the article's creator, but I'd like to point out the event has received media coverage and has been televised around the world.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]Zellfire999 (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep - The event has received significant media coverage from third party sources. Further media coverage by reliable third party sources as follows ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]Tracland (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Think argument for closure is weak. ATP tour is not happening due to COVID, this and Avia tour are its replacements until it resumes. Secondly notable as some of the first events back during the pandemic which allowed crowds in. All refs are independent. Deleting this page is like deleting history that has happened. The only other option is to merge these events into one article called Pandemic Tennis Competitions.User:Davidstewartharvey

Keep The ATP does not have a monopoly on men's tennis, and it certainly does not have a monopoly on notable tennis events. This event has received significant coverage in reliable sources and is certainly notable.—J. M. (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 💬 15:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adria Tour[edit]

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

Non-notable exhibition tournament. It's not an official ATP event, just a warm up event with a few notable individuals. WP:NOTINHERITED certainly applies here Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an event that has received extensive coverage in mainstream media. Therefore, it meets WP:N.^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]

^[17]

References

^ https://talksport.com/sport/tennis/716562/ultimate-tennis-showdown-serena-williams-coach-revolutionise-the-sport/
^ https://www.france24.com/en/20200614-ultimate-tennis-showdown-debuts-with-sniper-beating-underdog
^ https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/06/13/sports/sports-top/thiem-signs-up-for-ultimate-tennis-showdown/731381/
^ https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/ultimate-tennis-showdown-patrick-mouratoglou-format-players-a9561716.html
^ https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/06/12/patrick-mouratoglou-on-the-ultimate-tennis-showdown.html
^ https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/montreal-tennis-star-felix-auger-aliassime-pulls-out-of-ultimate-tennis-showdown-with-ankle-injury-1.4978417
^ "Dimitrov tests positive, Adria Tour event canceled". ESPN.com. June 21, 2020.
^ "Djokovic vs. Rublev Adria Tour final canceled after Dimitrov news". Tennis.com.
^ "Grigor Dimitrov: Adria Tour final cancelled as world no 19 tests positive for coronavirus". Sky Sports.
^ Briggs, Simon (June 22, 2020). "Two players, one coach, one fitness trainer - Covid-19 outbreak at controversial Novak Djokovic event worsens" – via www.telegraph.co.uk.
^ "Danilo Petrovic serves up shock to Alexander Zverev at Adria Tour". Eurosport. June 20, 2020.
^ "Novak Djokovic faces backlash after fitness coach tests Covid-positive in Adria Tour". June 22, 2020.
^ "Novak Djokovic shrugs off criticism over big crowds at Adria Tour: 'It's not up to me to make the calls'". Tennis365.com. June 14, 2020.
^ "Grigor Dimitrov tests positive for coronavirus after playing on Novak Djokovic's Adria Tour". Washington Post.
^ "Zadar will host part of major tennis tournament Adria Tour". Time Out Croatia.
^ "Dominic Thiem wins first leg of Adria Tour in Belgrade". June 15, 2020.
^ "Men's tennis set to return as Djokovic enters new Adria Tour event". Evening Standard. June 10, 2020.

Largoplazo (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of this "tournament coverage" is actually just about it being a Djokovic-created event, and Grigor Dimitrov (and some others) catching coronavirus. Neither of which are reasons to keep this article about an exhibition tennis tournament, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, "It has substantial coverage in mainstream independent reliable sources only because of reasons I'm choosing to discount for some reason". We're concerned only with the "has substantial coverage in mainstream independent reliable sources" part. Our evaluation of the notability of a subject doesn't include our personal opinions of whether the topic should have received coverage, as long as it did. Largoplazo (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's a blatent misrepresentation of what I said. Notable tennis players catching coronavirus has substantial coverage, but the tournament itself doesn't. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the coverage is that the tournament was the subject of controversy and scrutiny in connection with both concerns over coronavirus and the actual aftermath. The name of the tournament is even in all the headlines. Largoplazo (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are also numerous sources discussing the event itself (although the COVID breakout there also adds to notability).^[1]^[2]^[3] Zellfire999 (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep It received very extensive coverage before the coronavirus hype exploded. And internationally. Plus, it is not just a regular warm-up event for obvious reasons. The fact that it has been played during these times of non-ATP sanctioned events has made it far more notable than most exhibition tournaments, as almost all of them have to share their coverage with official tournaments due to the length of the ATP calendar. Also, it has been streamed on Tennis Channel and Eurosport, which is very uncommon for a non-official event (only Abu Dhabi comes to my mind right now, at least concerning Eurosport). And last but not least, it has featured not only World number 1, but also two other top 10 players, among other undoubtedly notable players (unlike, let's say, the Generali Austrian Pro Series). WTC7812 (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the above this has received extensive coverage from independent third party sources such that it is sufficient to meet general notability guidelines. A quick google search shows that there has been a lot of press coverage of this event (both as an event and as a result of coronavirus)Tracland (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Think argument for closure is weak. ATP tour is not happening due to COVID, this and Ultimate Tennis are its replacements until it resumes. Secondly notable as some of the first events back during the pandemic which allowed crowds in. All refs are independent. Deleting this page is like deleting history that has happened. The only other option is to merge these events into one article called Pandemic Tennis Competitions.User:Davidstewartharvey
Keep As per the above. --IndexAccount (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Massive coverage in reliable sources, the event and its aftermath have become a hot topic in public debate, even in political circles.—J. M. (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a frivolous request. There is no ridiculous "rule" on Wikipedia that automatically bans all tennis exhibition articles no matter what, just because they are not part of the WTA or ATP tour. Once upon a time even those tour tournaments consisted of exhibitions. In any case Adria Tour is notable enough on its own. --Loginnigol (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't frivolous, in my opinion the coverage is about the players getting coronavirus and lack of social distancing and there's insufficient sources actually about the tournament. Please don't be belittling of other editors. And I still believe that is the case, though I respect the consensus disagrees with me. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying Umberto's Clam House isn't really notable because little coverage was given to the food they served. Things are allowed to be notable for reasons unrelated to their core being. Largoplazo (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or like insisting Catherine O'Leary isn't notable because other than being blamed for the great Chicago Fire and the owner of a much-ballyhooed cow, she was an unremarkable Irish immigrant in Chicago. Largoplazo (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event has caused controversy for its lack of social distancing protocols and the fact that at least three players caught coronavirus. Definitely notable. MasterMind5991 (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 💬 15:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Starks[edit]

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

Non-notable professional wrestling. Fails WP:PW/N and WP:GNG Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 21:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is now officially a member of the AEW roster, so propose article remain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigfoote (talk • contribs) 07:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I heared he would join AEW, but I didn't know if was a rumor. Now, he is part of AEW. Maybe, with sources and work (trimming the no notable promotions, not need to include evry singles match he had in ACW or IPW), we can keep it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Since he recently was granted into a notable event, he's more likely to garner coverage. Captain Galaxy (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant change in status since this AfD started. Now on the roster of a major promotion, had a high profile match, and gained additional fame--even beyond wrestling--when NBA Hall of Famer Dominique Wilkins offered to become his manager. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like this person qualifies as notable via WP:PW/N due to recent career changes. DavidDelaune (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cardboard Heroes. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cardboard Heroes Champions Set 3: Enemies[edit]

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

Usually, I redirect articles where I can only find the one review already in the article and nothing else, to the company that made these. However, this one is so obscure, and the single review is from the company that produced the miniatures in the first place, that even a redirect would be too much honour. Utterly and completely non notable. Fram (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the single reference for reception, I'd prefer to see this merged somewhere, maybe to the SJG company? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The single ref is from the company, so that's hardly a reason to keep it anywhere. This is a set of cardboard figures, one of many, many products produced by the company. Thuis would be comparable to an article about BMW gloves or similar merchandise, produced by BMW and only discussed in the BMW company magazine; we wouldn't want to merge that to the BMW article either. Fram (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is only coverage from the games creator which notifies the game's existance but little else. As a result there is nothing to suggest this topic is notable. WP:GNG applies. Agree with comments from Fram, merging the content would be akin to merging an article about branded merchandise to the brand page. Not really what we would do. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 18:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cardboard Heroes, since it is essentially an extension of the line by the same game company. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With respect to User:Fram's argument that the subject fails notability so badly it does not earn a redirect, I am agnostic. With products that are older than Wikipedia, I'm usually inclined to be generous, although my glance over 'What links here' reveals no interesting links to the page. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per WP:CHEAP. Hobit (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cardboard Heroes. An obvious merge target for this stubby contribution which is unlikely to grow much further. SpinningSpark 23:01, 1 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. While the !votes are numerically even, the "delete" !voters have made no attempt to rebut the arguments of the "keep" !voters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Adewumi Aderinoye[edit]

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

The article contains zero sources, it's unencyclopedic in nature and it appears that the article author has a personal relationship to the subject. Ibn Daud (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The eubject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. He lacks coverage in reliable secondary sources. A Google search of him only brings up papers written in his honor. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale provided by Versace1608. A before I conducted doesn’t show any evidence of notability. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is not notable, does not have enough coverage. Nika2020 (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:ACADEMIC by a wide margin by it satisfying WP:PROF#C5 as the subject was appointed as the Executive Secretary of National Commission for Nomadic Education 1 and also WP:PROF#C3 being a member of the apogee academy of Education in Nigeria: "Nigerian Academy of Education" 2, also WP:PROF#C1. The subject also reaffirms the community discussion in a recent RfC. Lastly the nominator nominated the article for deletion at eactly 8 minutes later after it was published while the author was still working on it which was too hasty i think. – Kaizenify (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Kaizenify, as subject meet atleast one criteria of WP:NPROF enough to meet our inclusion criteria. Korebabs (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article clearly passed this General Notability Guidelines, take a look at what the nomitor said, and see the reason behind the nomination, he stated "The article contains zero sources...." imagine! I don't know why some editors in Wikipedia are curious to nominate article for deletion, instead of sticking to the basics rules provided, before nominating an article for deletion, see whether the article have independent sources, so that it can be improve, and you are expected to do or leave it to some editors to do so, an article can not be completely sourced at once, it requires time, now how many references have you seen in the article? and per which deletion criteria are you suggesting the deletion? He/She quickly suggest deletion per no reference, now references are provided, what then? per which criteria again? time is still yours to strike your words.

Also, he stated "it's unencyclopedic in nature...." How do you expect it to be encyclopedic when you tagged it at exactly 8 minutes after the article was created, why can't you wait and see after some days, now when it is completed tell me, is it encyclopedic?

Let me make this clear, some editors are not expose to Nigerian educational affairs or the current affairs, and they will jump to it negatively, voting delete due to what they feel like the academic person or the sources are not reliable, this user User:Kaizenify clearly put a concrete evidence into the table, per his evidence, per the article was not tag base on a specific deletion criteria, per the nominator goes ahead of the line, tagging before completion, at exactly 8 minutes after the page was created, that shows no any willingness in him to improve or let someone to improve, I strongly urge Keeping this article, it will be a legacy for the next Nigerian generation to come.---- An@ss_koko^{(speak up)} 23:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator. All of the “delete votes” are only based on the nominator wrong information about the subject and not about the present article form. Also none of the delete votes have showed how the subject here fails wp:NPROF. Kaizenify (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep. The subject satisfies WP:BASICS, WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. The subject belongs to the body of the highest level of academics (Nigeria Academy of Education) and held key Nigerian national positions in education. A look at some of the sources in the article prove the subject's notability, for instance sources number 2 [[13]],8 [[14]],13[[15]], 15 [[16]] with other sources backing this article, it's a speedy keep. Ugbedeg (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Struck out !vote from sock puppet above. Celestina007 (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per rationals by Kaizenify and An@ss_koko.Em-mustapha ^talk 11:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 💬 15:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gray (psychologist)[edit]

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

lack of reference. Notability issue? Factchecker170 (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:NAUTHOR. His Free to Learn book has been reasonably widely reviewed.[17][18][19] I did not find reviews of his Psychology textbook, but believe that to be due to its age. It's in its 8th edition, and appears to be reasonably widely adopted, being held in various editions by 310 libraries according to Worldcat. He appears to be well-cited, and WP:NPROF C1 is plausible, but his common name makes it difficult to search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on WP:NPROF C1, the top two hits for a Google Scholar search for "Peter Gray play" are both from the subject, and have 400+ and 200+ GS citations respectively. The combination of this with the weak NAUTHOR looks to me like a reasonable case for keeping. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Russ Woodroofe Ed6767 talk! 16:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Russ Woodroofe & the textbook. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments for notability as an author and as an academic both have merit and combined I think they show enough to make him WP notable. I found more citations at Google Scholar than I expected. Papaursa (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 21:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Pandit[edit]

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

Page created as a marketing tool. No evidence to establish the credibility could be found beyond the sole review already in the article. Website referenced in the articles is a personal blog.Atul32 (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable motivational speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio + non-remarkable person + no signs of sizeable contributions to any field (nothing as a author), Almost all content is sourced to their own blog. Ideally we should delete it speedily. So I have marked it for the same. thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 12:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Dragon Miniatures[edit]

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

No evidence that this range of miniatures is notable, nothing to establish this could be found beyond the sole review already in the article.[20] Company has no article either. Fram (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added a second independent review, establishing notability. Guinness323 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Correction to my previous entry: I added a third independent review as well. Guinness323 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Um, can you please review what "independent" means? Reviews of Dungeons & Dragons miniatures in the official Dungeons & Dragons magazine (published by the makers of D&D) are by definition not independent at all, but reviews with a clear COI. This is the textbook example of a source that fails the rules in WP:IIS. There still is only the one independent review, just like when this was nominated. Fram (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - TAG Industries had no formal or informal commercial connections to TSR. By 1980, the fantasy role-playing industry had grown way beyond D&D to encompass dozens of fantasy role-playing systems published by various companies. Publishing reviews of fantasy miniatures did not represent a clear commercial benefit to TSR, since the figurines could just as easily be used in rival fantasy RPGs like RuneQuest or Tunnels & Trolls. Included in the article from Dragon #81 are reviews for a line of contemporary figurines such as secret agents and police -- clearly not designed for TSR's fantasy RPGs. It's obvious Dragon was reviewing products not just for use with their own line of RPGs but of of interest to the wider gaming community. I do not use Dragon reviews of TSR products, that would be a clear conflict of interest. But arm's-length reviews of third-party products meet the definition of independent.Guinness323 (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep I agree, Dragon is a fine source for reviews of non-TSR products. Sources all told are over the bar. Hobit (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can the reviews be linked? At the very least, in this discussion, through some sort of temporary file sharing service? I am concerned whether the reviews are in-depth or just mentions in passing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd not thought to look before, but a web search found them on-line. https://annarchive.com/files/Drmg081.pdf is issue 81 for example. The reviews are just a single paragraph and a picture. Between the two, I think we're in good shape, but YMMV. Hobit (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources are OKAY. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 18:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Isle of Four Winds: Rune War[edit]

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

Seems to have received no significant attention beyond the lone review already given in the article. This review is present in the 35 hits on Google as well[21], but nothing else there seems to be useful to establish notability. Company has no article either, so no obvious redirect target. Fram (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As well as the review mentioned in the article (which can be read on p. 117 here) the game was also reviewed in Strategy Plus magazine. Two substantial reviews in reliable sources for game makes this a pass for WP:NGAME. FOARP (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2 sources isn't great for WP:N. Please do not cite an essay (NGAME) to support this. --Izno (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will cite any essay that is relevant - it is for the closer to decide whether they think it persuasive. Two independent sources is evidence that it "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:GNG and as such this article should be presumed notable. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I said "not great", not "not evidence that it exists".
Why are you adding the confusion by citing an essay? Your argument boils down to WP:GNG, so why not reference the policy/guideline directly that actually supports deletion (or keeping)? The closer can decide if it is persuasive, but the closer can also be reminded that you are citing an essay. So, just don't do it. Save you and the closer the grief of trying to decide whether there is merit. Just as you are allowed to use an essay, I am allowed to call you out for using an essay and choosing not to provide a reference to policy and guidelines to support your case. I did so. --Izno (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it also clarifies that there is not a closer subject-specific policy guideline similar to WP:NPOL or WP:NBOOK. It is worth remembering that many of the guidelines began life as simple essays and were adopted as guidelines over time through use and improvement. There is nothing wrong in citing an essay if it is the closest thing to a guideline for the subject matter - no-one is going to be confused by doing so. Many essay-level articles are cited at AFD (to name a few commonly-cited ones: WP:TNT, WP:ALLPLOT, and even WP:BLUDGEON) it is fine to say you disagree with them and that they are not accepted policy or guidelines, but there is nothing wrong with citing them as part of your rationale. WP:GNG is so commonly cited that it seems unnecessary often to cite it - though I note you don't have any firm rebuttal to there being two WP:NEWSORG references giving WP:SIGCOV and thus creating a WP:GNG presumption of notability. FOARP (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't get past 2 sources, you're probably not in presumed territory yet, even if I take on faith that the two sources are more than a paragraph or a sentence each (i.e. that they meet the requirement for in-depth/significant).
no-one is going to be confused by doing so is incorrect. People new to Wikipedia are confused by our Byzantine labyrinth all the time, and this is no less true of AFD. I have a strong opinion that we should be simplifying our notability guidelines, and that means reducing the many we have, not encouraging the application of non-guidelines (i.e. adding more). The video game sphere gets/has gotten enough crap from supposed More-Important-Places without adding the bad rationale you supply against deletion with such essay-referencing.
I am, however, happy to see that Jimmy rustled up a few more sources for use. --Izno (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two reviews most definitely can be sufficient for a WP:GNG pass and I am disturbed that someone who has voted in so many AFDs doesn’t know this. The standard is “significant coverage in reliable sources”, that is, “sources” plural, including two. Some of the subject-specific guidelines make this explicit by saying “at least two” or “two or more” (see eg WP:NBOOK). FOARP (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(←) doesn’t know this and doesn't (always) agree with it after consideration are not the same. Be careful not to assume my knowledge or lack thereof. The GNG sentence of interest is If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list., but it includes a whole lot more than that, and here I quote the particular bullets of interest (with some eliding):

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. E.g: The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. and Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

"Sources" ... (In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.) ... There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. ... Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. ...

When qualified as so, 2 sources doesn't make a good case for notability. Other guidelines are immaterial in this case anyway, and I might suggest they're more likely the result of being written by some old guard more interested in ensuring their pet topic is retained than in providing generalizable rules. You'll note that the GNG itself clearly takes no stance. --Izno (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And one more: All of that presumes that you take the stance that industry magazines are sufficiently independent and that the sources provided treat the topic in-depth, the latter of which I granted might be the case and the former of which has a mixed history in almost every industry, no less so in the (video) gaming industry. --Izno (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe worth a mention on Mahjong (that probably needs a WP:SPLIT, aside). 2 sources isn't great. List of PC games is also maybe viable given that we have the pair of references even if no blue link. --Izno (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Mahjong nor List of PC games are good merges. List of PC Games is a list and thus not a merge target as it is not for content about the subject matter, covering this subject in Mahjong would be obviously WP:UNDUE (similar to covering a specific chess program in Chess). FOARP (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was not suggesting it would be a merge to List of PC games. Two sources proves reasonable existence, not notability. As for chess, that has many subarticles, including chess engine and chess software, where the article might similarly be appropriate (presumably chess software). --Izno (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article should never have been nominated. It already has two reviews from reliable, independent sources: Next Generation and Computer Games Strategy Plus, two of America's top game magazines during the '90s. The company's archived official site lists additional coverage from PC Gamer UK (given this, and the fact that Next Gen often mirrored content from Britain's Edge, it seems likely that other British magazines reviewed it as well) and Game.EXE ([22]). It's also been listed at Allgame ([23]) and it appears in the book ZDNet Software Library 10,000 (1997). I haven't even looked carefully through print magazine PDFs yet, which often show up poorly (if at all) in Google search results. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It had only the one review when listed, being included in allgame is not a sign of notability (just like being included in allmusic is not a sign of notability), and it doesn't seem to be included in the ZDNet book[24]... Fram (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake on the Google Books result—it turned up a false positive for "Isle of Four Winds" as that phrase appears in the game Fantasy General, which is featured in the book. Nevertheless, the other points remain. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JimmyBlackwing ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 18:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slowly Slowly[edit]

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

Non notable songs that fails WP:NSINGLE. Signature 13:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Signature 13:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The song has received some coverage and the sources indicated in the article are reliable. The article is good enough to pass WP:NSINGLE. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dheeme Dheeme (song)[edit]

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

Non notable songs that fails WP:NSINGLE. Signature 13:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Signature 13:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The song has received some coverage and the sources indicated in the article are reliable. The article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Farmer[edit]

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

This is a self-promotional autobiography. Playing once or twice a month in local bars does not make you notable in any way. I can't find any news articles. It fails most of WP:MUSIC

This article should have been deleted a long time ago EditQwerty (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. EditQwerty (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. EditQwerty (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place to create autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can find no significant and reliable coverage as necessary for notability, and he is only present in routine gig announcements and streaming services. Obviously an attempt at promotion. Also note that the article was created by a user account called K14studio, the name of the musician's own facility, and that user account did nothing except create this article then disappear in 2009. Well, better late than never. Also, in the past 11 years I wonder if he has reconsidered bragging about his teen troubles with the law, as if that makes him look cooler or, in Wikipedia's terms, more notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about him. Not to mention the name is common. Article is definitely WP:PROMOTIONAL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle York (American football)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like high-hanging fruit as far as major college football players go. Starting QB of a SEC school, several sources cited in the article, and more that come up in a Google search for him. Seems to have enough independent, reliable coverage, and it's definitely a name Mississippi State fans will recognize – not some obscure nobody. Jhn31 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like the existing coverage passes WP:GNG, both in the article and online searches. Typically we find that starting quarterbacks of SEC teams generate enough press to pass the general notability guideline, and this does not seem to be an exception even though he only started a handful of games. Often backup quarterbacks will also generate the press, so this would be a typical result. While I grant that the coverage is less than a regular starting SEC QB, the coverage is still there and enough to pass.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep -- I'm not terribly impressed by the sources in the article right now. I wayback'd a couple dead links and nothing in there is really great, but Paul/Jhn are right that usually a starting SEC quarterback is notable. Maybe someone who's better at searching newspapers from that time could find something? Nole (chat·edits) 14:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cbl62: any chance you can do a newspapers.com search? Nole (chat·edits) 17:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found this, this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Four feature articles clearly are WP:NOTROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's excellent. Striking the "weak" from my comment, this should pass GNG. Nole (chat·edits) 18:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is no inherent notability for SEC QBs and I'm not seeing much outside routine beat reporting in terms of coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've done some looking but can't find anything outside of routine game reporting on him, apart from maybe the Baptist newsletter already in the article. Apart from maybe that one, I don't think any of the other references currently in the article pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has the sources to meet GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The sources appear to clear the WP:GNG bar here, albeit barely. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming sources actually meet WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hwal Moo Do[edit]

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

Is this a notable martial art? There are next to no sources in English. Seems it became more popular in Italy, since there are some Google News hits in Italian, but I have trouble evaluating whether they are reliable and in-depth. As Korean name in Hangul is not given, and no Korean sources are cited, it is hard to even begin evaluating coverage in Korean :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry I'm not yet familiar with this discussion page I hope this is the right way to answer) Thanks for having highlighted the issues. Which exactly are the parameters to define a martial art as notable? This martial art is present in the countries indicated in the article (Italy, Greece, Switzerland, US) not in Korea. It originated in Korea as the founder was high rank in Tang Soo Doo in Korea ^[1] and took many techniques of the Tang Soo Do. I added the Korean name in both Hangul/Hanja. This martial art is more popular in Italy but as it's practiced in other countries as well an article in English should be more appropriate. Available online news mostly regard the engagement of Hwal Moo Do students in kickboxing competitions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiripunzel (talk • contribs) 20:30, June 15, 2020 (UTC)

— Spiripunzel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Spiripunzel: Please see Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Mixed_martial_arts for the answer to your question re "Which exactly are the parameters to define a martial art as notable". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the best place to see notability criteria for a martial art is at WP:MANOTE. Mixed martial arts is a subset of the martial arts project. Papaursa (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://books.google.ch/books?id=dJkIioY6IocC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=Hwang+Kee+lee+kun+hwa&source=bl&ots=bDt7MAm2H-&sig=ACfU3U0nrkfGHAEsQtqtk030e7h0lXQmPQ&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5_-Dm1IPqAhUGTsAKHeY8Cb8Q6AEwCnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=%20lee%20kun%20hwa&f=fals

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the evidence that this art meets any of the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. My search didn't find significant independent coverage of this art nor does the article show such coverage. There are a decent number of ghits, but also a severe lack of independent articles. Youtube, Facebook, and individual dojo/organization articles do not help show notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin. If this is deleted, please also take care of the problematic categories currently present in the article. Even if the article is kept they likely need to go. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I agree that Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Mixed_martial_arts is not applicable as the fighting sport practiced in Hwal Moo Do is Kickboxing and not MMA. WP:MANOTE looks more appropriate.

@Paparusa: As mentioned most of the sources are in Italian only as the discipline is primarily practiced in Italy. I collected some additional articles from different Italian online/printed newspaper which I think meet the "Criteria supporting notability" defined in WP:MANOTE.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11] In addition looking at other martial arts such as Hwarang Do or Tang Soo Do most of the sources do not really meet the criteria "Subject of an independent article/documentary" as they are created by the organization itself or by people deeply involved in the organization.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiripunzel (talk • contribs) 18:16, June 29, 2020 (UTC)

@Spiripunzel: Please sign your posts. I went back and looked at the martial arts notability criteria and still don't see that this art meets any of them. Looking at your sources, I see a congratulatory note for success at a sports festival, an article on the success of the Italian team at the U.S. Open in Orlando which is an open tournament that requires no qualifying and has hundreds of divisions (definitely not the highest level), an interview with the founder, a 7 page long list of people for the Italian kickboxing team, and a bunch of congratulatory articles from various competitions. The articles don't mention this art and the competitions are not the highest level. None of these show significant independent coverage or meet any of the criteria at WP:MANOTE. If other arts fail to meet those criteria, it means they should be deleted not that this should stay (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). If you can specifically show me how it meets WP:MANOTE I am willing to reconsider my vote, but nothing you have shown so far is sufficient. If you are connected to this art in any way then you should read WP:COI. Papaursa (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Papaursa: Congratulatory articles are about international WAKO competitions. They can be verified on https://www.sportdata.org/ where the results of most of the WAKO competitions are published. For example HMD is listed in the top-ten teams of the Irish Open in 2020^[12], 2019^[13], 2017^[14], 2016^[15]. Or Athens Challenge ^[16] (multiple years) and other european tournaments easly verifiable on sport data. Now, if events like the Irish Open are not in your list of high level competitions, then I honestly suggest to get informed about Kickboxing in Europe. By the way if newspaper articles, international championships and athletes in Italian national FIKBMS team (which by the way requires qualification) are not source of notability, please go on with the deletion as this seems to me more like censorship than patrolling. Spiripunzel

This is not about censorship, please WP:AGF. I've been familiar with the Irish Open for almost 20 years. It is a big tournament, but it has hundreds of divisions with most of them for children or underbelts (non-black belts). All of those levels are not "the highest", which are generally considered world championship or Olympic events--and junior martial arts divisions generally never confer notability. Even Youth Olympic gold medalists have been determined to be non-notable for WP. This is your first article and I understand your passion. I'm just trying to help you understand some of WP's policies. I have nothing against this particular art, but listings of results are not considered significant coverage (more like routine sports reporting). Papaursa (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Papaursa: Apologize for being a bit rude. I kind of understand your point, I also still have some remarks such as (1) those medals were not only from junior but also in black belts categories, (2) having many juniors joining and winning such events should also mean that the discipline has many practitioners compared to common kickboxing teams. (3) A martial art should not only be about fighting tournaments and world champions, that should actually be named fighting sport. However, I accept that there are not yet the requisites of having a dedicated page for the Hwal Moo Do. I will then search for sources which could highlight the linking and relation of this discipline with the Tang Soo Do and Tae Kwon Do and eventually propose additions to those pages.Spiripunzel

Delete - The corresponding Italian WP page has no interesting links to it, the MA is seems to be less than 30 years old, there are no books about it, and the art's so-called grandmaster does not merit a WP page. This is not close to clearing GNG; with respect to verifiability, clicking on the non-RS links given provides me with content of ambiguous relevance to the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:20, 1 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hadi Haidar[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Possibly even a hoax. I know a thing or two about Belarusian football and this player definitely did not spend any of his youth career in Belarus. --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This footballer is a real footballer, as shown by the news announced by the very reliable Iraqi Professional Players in February 2020 on various social media platforms, which is corroborated by the player's own social media platforms which show him playing for his current club Al-Shorta SC. I follow football extensively in Eastern Europe and the Middle East and I have researched and scouted this player and all information appears to be correct. --User:MisterWiki2k (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has he made his debut for Al-Shorta? Spiderone 17:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant as Iraqi league is not fully-pro. --BlameRuiner (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't played in the league for Al-Shorta as far as statistics show, although that is probably due to the Iraqi Premier League, which is fully professional and among the top 7 leagues in Asia, being cut short but he has played in the pre-season friendlies in February as shown by the club's social media profiles. --MisterWiki2k (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the player is significant to Iraqi football as he is the first expat to join an Iraqi club, announced by the most followed Iraqi football platform online, as well as being one of a handful of foreign-born Iraqi footballers, with European youth experience. He's been unlucky with the COVID-19 pandemic halting his first professional season but is already a part of Iraqi football. MisterWiki2k (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~- meets GNG per IraqiProPlayers source (in Arabic). User:MisterWiki2k (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Duplicate vote

Delete - Doesn't pass GNG, simple as that. HawkAussie (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear GNG failure Spiderone 09:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 03:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Sidorenko[edit]

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

No evidence of notability of the person -- Perohanych (talk) 07:31, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Joynt[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Only "reference" (an ext. link) is dead, and I could't find any other. He's not even mentioned in Winter Hill Gang he was an "associate" of or in any of the other linked articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable criminal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Lariviere[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. His driving record appears to consist of a few disqualifications and a non-qualification. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete one stats page is not enough of a source to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find a mention of them in any sources, let alone reliable, or in-depth, other than a couple of 1933 newspaper references relating to fail to start at the 1933 Indianapolis 500. Nfitz (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a one-sentence stub lacking proper sourcing to establish notability.TH1980 (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I dont think we're getting a clear consensus from this AfD. Fenix down (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major Indoor Soccer League (1978–1992) broadcasters[edit]

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

PROD removed by article creator. This is non-notable WP:LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 10:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Major Indoor Soccer League on CBS (articles)

BLAST FOR SOCCER FANS: CBS AIRS MISL GAME

Weekend TV Highlights - UPI Archives - UPI.com

Soccer league fizzles, extinguishes city's Blast Last-minute talks to replace teams fail

ONLY MAJOR PRO SOCCER LEAGUE IN U.S. FOLDS

Indoor soccer quite up-to-date in Kansas City, home of Comets

Major Indoor Soccer League on ESPN (articles)

Frank Dale Finds Going Tough as MISL Commissioner

MISL SET TO UNVEIL CABLE TV PACKAGE

M.I.S.L. COMMISSIONER ANGERS OWNER

MISL All-Stars Clash on Sunday

Major Indoor Soccer League on FNN/Score (articles)

IS A VERDICT NEAR FOR MISL?

Major Indoor Soccer League on Hughes Television Network (articles)

Indoor Soccer: Losing Money, Gaining Confidence

Major Indoor Soccer League on SportsChannel America (articles)

MSL NOTEBOOK / JOHN GEIS : Owners Don't Delay in Making

MSL season to open with new look

APSL-U.S. Federation feud could hurt World Cup club

Major Indoor Soccer League on USA Network (articles)

MISL SET TO UNVEIL CABLE TV PACKAGE

Years After Fizzling Out, MISL 40th Reunion Ready For Launch

Ontario Fury, the Professional Indoor Soccer Team, is a Well-Kept Secret

No Money Down!: How to Buy a Sports Franchise

SHOW, SEX AND SUBURBS

Cable Vision: TV pioneer Kay Koplovitz saw the future of sports networks

Bob Carptener

https://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/former-cards-announcer-carpenter-gets-big-honor-in-oklahoma/article_6421ffba-8e23-596e-bf9a-d8a47868b9a2.html

https://gtrnews.com/midcontournamenttobringbobcarpenterhome-d1/

Joel Meyers

https://www.nba.com/pelicans/blog/meet-new-orleans-pelicans-broadcasters-joel-meyers-103013

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-01-31-sp-2769-story.html

Bill MacDonald

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-07-03-sp-1714-story.html

https://www.ocregister.com/2011/10/25/lakers-lunch-meet-announcer-bill-macdonald/

Bob Ley

https://funwhileitlasted.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/7-22-1984-New-York-Cosmos-vs-World-All-Stars-Game-Notes.pdf

JP Dellacamera

https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blogs/thegoalkeeper/JP_Dellacamera_moves_to_FSC_stays_with_Union.html

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1992-02-11-1992042204-story.html

Al Trautwig

https://patch.com/new-york/gardencity/emmy-award-winning-sportscaster-al-trautwig-78-deliver-121st-adelphi

Chicago

https://funwhileitlasted.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/March-1987-Bee-Lines.pdf

Cleveland

https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2013/08/01/watch-some-old-school-cleveland-indoor-soccer

Denver

https://books.google.com/books?id=57WgMJHEAHcC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=kyle+rot+jr.+misl+usa+network&source=bl&ots=SsmvdADR7i&sig=ACfU3U3GDKVdtmVwFWPnlK_dZxHBcfGz5g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivhOCvk4HqAhWBQzABHU7dCk8Q6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=kyle%20rot%20jr.%20misl%20usa%20network&f=false

https://milehighsports.com/denver-avalanche-mile-highs-sports-magazine-march-2018/

New York

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/12/arts/sports-on-cable.html

San Diego

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-09-09-sp-12708-story.html

St. Louis

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nUo0Qo29PbcJ:https://wp.issuu.com/dmsgroup/docs/03-24-2017.pdf/31+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

BornonJune8 (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: May I ask you something, is it "list cruft" to provide a list of other American based association football broadcasters like Major League Soccer? If that's the case, than why is there a Wikipedia article for List of current Major League Soccer broadcasters. And while we're going down that route how about any other list of association football broadcasters that you personally may or may not care anything or about or have any reverence for!? I mean, the MISL in-between the demise of the North American Soccer League and the launch of MLS, was pretty much the defacto biggest professional soccer association in the United States (even though it was indoors). Here's an article via the Associated Press that details the folding of MISL in 1992:

https://www.deseret.com/1992/7/11/18994098/only-major-pro-soccer-league-in-u-s-folds-br

And another one from the Baltimore Sun:

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1992-07-11-1992193073-story.html

BornonJune8 (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant coverage of the topic (broadcasters in MISL) in reliable, third-party sources? Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Are there any lists of commentators for other major leagues and competitions - List of Premier League commentators, List of FIFA World Cup commentators etc]]? Oh look, there aren't any, because the topic of 'commentators' is intrinsically non-notable... Giant Snowman 11:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TBF List of Premier League broadcasters and List of FIFA World Cup broadcasters do exist..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is primarily a list of channels, not individuals. Can you imagine the carnage if we had a list of every person to commentate a game in the Premier League, given the number of radio/TV etc. channels that cover it?! Giant Snowman 18:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: The last time that I checked, there actually are articles listing FIFA World Cup broadcasters and Premier League commentators, so your argument right then and there has already been thrown out of the window. And the FIFA World Cup article also list virtually every person (at least in the United States and United Kingdom but still) to comment a game from over the last 50 years. Of course, it doesn't list specifically what games those individuals called during that particular point in time, but still. And like I said, there's a list of individuals and networks that currently broadcast Major League Soccer games. And that particular league is on going unlike MISL, which went out of business in 1992. And might I add, you ask about where exactly the significant coverage of the topic is in reliable, third-party sources? I just posted a list of them (in bold) in my initial response. BornonJune8 (talk) 6:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, you're referring to List of Premier League broadcasters, which is an article about the world's biggest league, and refers to TV channels only. Your article on MISL is about a minor league that folded 3 decades ago, and has no significant coverage on the topic. They are not the same. Giant Snowman 18:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: You're seemingly making an apples and oranges argument. You can't compare something like the Premier League from Europe to an admittedly niche sport like the MISL in the United States. That would be like comparing the National Football League to the Arena Football League. And of course, a "minor League" isn't going to get as much significant coverage as a well-established professional sports league like the Premier League or the NFL. You could possibly say that for any "minor" league even if there is actually "evidence" on the internet that they did receive some form of television or radio coverage. The point is here, is that is or isn't there any significant coverage on the topic. And as I've been trying to address in here in the links that I posted, yes there is. And again, if you're going to point out to a list of broadcasters that only refers to TV channels, then what do you have to say about articles listing current National Football League broadcasters, which not only list the radio stations and TV networks, but also the announcers. And that's the same thing with Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that the other articles that exist on a similar vein are not comparable and that this topic does not have any significant coverage. Now, what is your argument for the topic of MISL broadcasters of being notable enough to justify a separate article? Other than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Giant Snowman 19:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: My main point is that how can you say that any other sports broadcasting related article like the Premier League doesn't literally list every announcer when I just pointed out to you that in the United States at least, there are articles on Wikipedia that do list the announcers as well as the TV and radio outlets for each franchise. And you keep ignoring the fact that I've provided you a list of third-party sources (such as newspaper articles and book excerpts) that make reference of the various television networks and announcers (such as Randy Hahn, Joel Meyers, Bob Carpenter, and Bill MacDonald) to have covered the MISL. By my count, I've provided at least 30 different sources up above. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: It should be worth noting that the MISL during its "peak" in the '80s managed to have its games broadcast on not only ESPN and USA Network (among the biggest cable networks in the United States), but also major broadcast network in the form of CBS. So don't tell me that there aren't any significant coverage for a "minor league that fold 3 decades ago". Here's a reference to CBS' coverage here:

This would be the final year the MISL would have games aired on network television, CBS broadcast Game 4 of the championship series live on May 25.^[17]

As well as ESPN:

For the most part, the league format remained unchanged. A 48-game season would be followed with an eight-team playoff, similar to the playoff system used from 1982 to 1984. There would be one major change in gameplay, however. The shootout, part of the MISL since its inception, was dropped in favor of multiple overtime periods to decide games, if necessary.^[18] There was a steady national TV contract for the first time since 1983, as ESPN would televise 15 regular-season games and assorted playoff games.^[19]

BornonJune8 (talk) 7:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I've addressed this prior but in the separate articles for the Los Angeles Lazers and Wichita Wings, there are sections that detail their respective television and radio coverage. So if that isn't "significant" coverage regarding the MISL and its media outlets than I don't know what is:

In their inaugural season, the Lazers games were broadcast on Cable Radio Network. Beginning in the second season, Bill MacDonald asked Buss and Weinstein for permission to broadcast the Lazers home games on KBOB radio in Pasadena. MacDonald's family agreed to purchase the air time, and MacDonald's long running career was launched.^[20] During the 1983–84 season, the Lazers made the first entree into the television arena by broadcasting a few games on the Lakers and Kings KCAL 9 television network. Chick Hearn, the Lakers broadcaster, and Bob Miller, the Kings broadcaster, shared the play-by-play responsibilities. During the 1984–85 season, the Lazers began to broadcast their games on Prime Ticket, which was the regional sports network created by Dr. Jerry Buss for Southern California. This first Lazers broadcast was only the second event to have ever been aired on the Prime Ticket Network. Joel Meyers, a new and upcoming telecaster, joined MacDonald to become the dynamic team that announced every play from then on for the Lazers.^[21]

The Wings would appear nationally on the USA Network, ESPN, and CBS.^[22] Their first local television contract was with KSN-TV (NBC) and announcer Dave Armstrong in 1981-82. KSN would continue to broadcast the Wings through the 1985-86 season. Other announcers included Craig Bolerjack, Mike Kennedy, and Steve Dennis. Former Wing Joe Howarth and Director of Media Relations Steve Shaad, respectively, would serve as the color commentator for several of those seasons. The 1986-87 season saw KAKE-TV (ABC) take over the broadcast. Mark Allan would be their announcer through the 1988-89 season. The Wings would have no television contract thereafter.^[23] KFH Radio (1330 AM) would broadcast the Wings from 1981 through 1986, with first Bruce Haertl and then Jim Hawley announcing. Steve Shaad, Blake Schreck, and Klaus Kollmai served as color commentators on the KFH broadcasts. In 1986, KRZ (1240 AM) took over the radio broadcasting, with Dave Phillips as announcer. As KNSS, they would continue to broadcast the Wings through the 1989-90 season. Phillips would be the voice of the Wings with KZSN (1480 AM) through the 1993 season. Steve Dennis took over KZSN's announcing duties in 1994 and continued through the transition to KFH in 1995-96. Former Wings goalkeeper Kris Peat served as announcer in 1996-97. In 1997, Rob Barzegar and KQAM (1480 AM) became the Wings radio broadcaster.^[23]

I don't understand why you have to use the article on Premier League broadcasters as some sort of measuring stick regarding whether or not any other association football related media article is notable. It's like your saying that since the Premier League article doesn't have to explicitly list the commentators (only the TV networks), it's automatically counts as a more credible source than an almost similar type of list for the MISL. And I you also ignored that I pointed out to you the article on the FIFA World Cup broadcasters (which is of course, one of the biggest sporting events in the world; right up there with the Olympics) showed not only the TV networks but the commentators. And your whole argument that "well of course the Premier League, the biggest soccer league in the world is going to warrant an article over a minor league in the United States that folded 3 decades ago would be like me saying that when compared to the National Football League, there shouldn't at all be articles detailing the radio and television coverage of admittedly smaller organizations like the United States Football League, the World Football League, the Arena Football League, etc. That is even if an opposing party still tried to fully go out of their way to provide as many credible third-party sources as possible.

BornonJune8 (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Il Centro (online/printed newspaper)".
^ "Il Mamilio (online/printed newspaper)".
^ A government recognition paper (PDF)
^ "Budo international interview (online/printed martial art magazine)".
^ "Infomedianews (online newspaper)".
^ "Terre Marsicane (online newspaper)".
^ "Marsica Live (online newspaper)".
^ "Ilfaro 24 (online newspaper)".
^ "Metamagazine (online newspaper)".
^ "Controluce(online newspaper)".
^ Recent FIKBMS (Italian Kickboxing Federation) qualification paper showing HMD athletes qualified for national kickboxing team (PDF)
^ "Irish Open Statistics 2020".
^ "Irish Open Statistics 2019".
^ "Irish Open Statistics 2017".
^ "Irish Open Statistics 2016".
^ "Athens Challenge 2020".
^ Sarni, Jim (May 25, 1985). "Blast For Soccer Fans: CBS Airs MISL Game". South Florida Sun-Sentinel. Retrieved 2012-05-08.
^ "MISL's Seven New Rules". Los Angeles Times. October 23, 1985. Retrieved 2012-05-27.
^ MISL Official Guide 1989-90. 1989. p. 49.
^ Cite error: The named reference sover1984 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "The Year in American Soccer – 1986". Sover.net. 2012-07-12. Archived from the original on 2009-03-25. Retrieved 2016-05-12.
^ Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: I quote directly from WP:LC: "In general, a "List of X" stand-alone list article should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article." Seany91 (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seany91: And what about then, the television and radio coverage section in the main article for the MISL? BornonJune8 (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a separate article? Giant Snowman 10:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: What would you other than deleting the article entirely, personally prefer then? And might I add that this started after I made a category devoted to each of the sports announcers (such as Jon Miller, Bob Carpenter, JP Dellacamera, Randy Hahn, Harry Kalas, Bob Ley, Bill MacDonald, Al Trautwig etc.) who had called MISL games during their career. Of course, with a category, it's much harder to specific exactly which team, TV network, or radio station they called said MISL games for when compared to something like a list. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seany91: I had been intending on making a generalized article about the MISL's television coverage once I had the time, energy and was simply able to get around to it. What I'm reading into your response is that since there isn't a full blown article like that, then the separate list of broadcasters shouldn't be created since it isn't a legitimate enough of a topic. I made the section for the TV and radio coverage in the main MISL article in hope of providing some sort of context to go along with posting the list at the top of it. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A brief section on the main article is all that is needed. Giant Snowman 11:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: I would imagine though that a brief section on the main article doesn't exactly explain that or give enough detail about individual media coverage for the roughly 25 MISL franchises from its 15 year history. There's a difference between briefly summarizing (like in a few sentences to a paragraph or two) that the MISL had some of its games broadcasts on CBS, USA Network, and ESPN throughout its history and identifying the local announcers and regional cable channels/TV affiliates to have broadcasts said games outside of that window. You can have a brief section to provide some context before going further into that if you have the sources and information to back it up. Again, saying that all readers need is a brief section on the main article is pretty subjective if not down right presumptuous. Just because you personally feel that there shouldn't be too much information about the media coverage for the MISL doesn't mean that others wouldn't be curious. BornonJune8 (talk) 2:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I have made my point, you have made your point, you cannot persuade me otherwise, please stop pinging me. Giant Snowman 16:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this AfD is a mess and I haven't read any of it. That being said, the article is sourced, we do typically keep lists of broadcasters by league, and the Major Indoor Soccer League was one of if not the most important American soccer league of the 1980s. SportingFlyer T·C 16:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per wp:lstn stand alone lists can exist if the subject of the list is notable. Sporting F1 is right that this has precedence with other sports, but that the list still needs to meet wp:gng. However if it doe meet notability, then the articles in the list do not need to be notable, however editors can agree to make this notable.User:Davidstewartharvey

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Al-Hamadi[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Recreated after recent PROD (I suspect a sock). --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG per BBC and WalesOnline sources. Needs a good tidy up though. Giant Snowman 15:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- meets GNG with more than one source and can be seen on Swansea City FC official club social media accounts and website several times. MisterWiki2k (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A story about the guy from BBC Sport Wales, it's not quite there for GNG to me, but pretty dam close. Govvy (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep two GNG sources = keep. Nfitz (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WalesOnline article quotes massive chunks out of an article from Swansea's club website, pads the article with stuff about the Iraq national team and finishes off with a few quotes from the BBC article. The BBC article isn't enough to pass GNG. If Al-Hamadi wasn't an Iraqi immigrant the articles would have never been written. Keeping the page would discriminate against other players who don't run away from their country during a war. Dougal18 (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be the most creative use of WP:BIAS to support deletion that I've ever seen User:Dougal18. And surely questionable given the systemic racism that does exist in western society! Articles are good enough, and the comment about "running away" demonstrates that there's no NPOV in this comment! Nfitz (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the WalesOnline article with its clickbaity headline is enough for GNG. Quoting massively from other sources is lazy journalism. Googling him only returned the BBC and WalesOnline articles and a load of casual mentions. If Al-Hamadi was someone called Dai Jenkins and was from the valleys those articles wouldn't exist. If Al-Hamadi had stayed in Iraq those articles wouldn't exist either. Dougal18 (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, he'd be as likely to receive coverage, User:Dougal18. Given how much coverage he's had in Iraq already, with articles such as this and this. I'm not sure why you are claiming he's ONLY had coverage in those two articles. That they are more than enough to meet GNG doesn't mean there isn't other stuff. Scoring a goal during the Olympic qualifying probably gave him enough Iraqi coverage to also meet GNG. Nfitz (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional military brats[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTCRITERIA. List of military brats is already up for Afd. This is one step below that. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What makes this list pass WP:LISTN? I have no clue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- More a question of WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN; is this a useful way of indexing articles on notable fictional characters? See Category:Fictional military brats. postdlf (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've gone and nominated the category for deletion too, per WP:CATDEFINING. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No meaningful connection between these characters. Reywas92^Talk 18:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has too many redlinks and non-articles entries to be justified. Another telling thing is that in the example of Lois Lane, we have only the use of primary sources, we need to source articles to secondary sources. In this case that would be articles that explain how this trait is important for a character and of note. If we have to dig into the actual fictional works themselves we are categorizing by trivial characteeristics. In the case of Lois Lane it is not even a characteristic that is true of every version of Lois Lane. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy to User:Wikin00b1979/sandbox/Oliolie. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Backup file of Oliolie[edit]

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

Created after Oliolie was repeatedly declined in the Draft namespace. As the writer has been told repeatedly, the article fails WP:NMODEL. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no point in having a mainspace copy of the draft as a "backup". Java Hurricane 05:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The user thought that the article was in his sandbox (what is actually in his sandbox is a link to the live article). I've offered to have an admin move the article into his sandbox for him. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 07:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 07:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 07:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what a weird title. Yes I can understand that newbie might not be fluent with the policies and guidelines. The article should have been written under the title Oliolie. However it fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR and also has been written as WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, this is Patrick (Wikin00b1979). Please see my post on the Talk page. Thank you!

Wikin00b1979 (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oliolie is the current title now, as the backup files have been histmerged. Do you still want to AFD this? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still doesn't meet WP:NMODEL, even in its current form. Needs more external news sources rather than YouTube primary source videos where it is not clear she is individually credited among tens of other participants. None of the music videos point to notable artists at the moment; needs to be linked. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Due to some twist the article is at Oliolie; its link to the AfD leads right back here. Non-notable model. --Lockley (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/Draftify. I am not sure how this page made it to the public namespace Oliolie. I would like to continue to search for more sources that can verify her notability in Bali and in Indonesia. If we look back at how this article originally floated to the surface was when I made a "backup" of the wiki markup in another namespace which apparently tapped some categories or something (still not sure exactly what that was).... I would like to move the article back to my sandbox/draft namespace and be allowed more time to work on this. I don't think this is much to ask, and would reasonably address all concerns raised by those who are still here reading. So! As the author of this article -- is there anything else to discuss if we can come to agreement with this? I had submitted it for approval in the past because I thought it would have met the criteria of notability. Apparently I need to do some more collection of information about the subject that I can reference. I had mentioned before that I had some difficulty recently because one of the IMDB-like websites in Indonesia has not been online for me recently filmindonesia.or.id which may have some information about her appearances in film. I also need to do some more looking into her music career which is very small, but will attest to her notability (why else would so many music artists be interested in her appearing in their videos?). I am not sure how to approach her modeling career, because it would involve linking to copyrighted photographs and advertising. I have provided links to four articles/interviews with her that discuss her modeling career -- but four doesn't sound like it is enough for now??? Wikin00b1979 (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 12:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1X Band[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this band. The translated version of the German Wikipedia article says that they finished in 22nd place at the Eurovision Song Contest 1993 out of 25 participants. SL93 (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the claim for notability is that they participated at the Eurovision Song Contest, where they had to qualify first - there's even a dedicated article, Kvalifikacija za Millstreet. I added some references from mainstream media, as there were none when the article was nominated. --Tone 08:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per point 10 and 12 of WP:NMUSIC.BabbaQ (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Withdraw’’’. SL93 (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity (2009 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Despite being shown in a couple small film festivals [25], the film has no significant independent coverage (no published reviews of the film, no interviews with the filmmakers). It does not meet WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 12:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFO. Non notable film with minimal media attention. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 19:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Maguire[edit]

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

While there are claims of significance, including a non-notable book (with only 1 review), university awards, self-initiated/promo podcast, and nondescript accountancy co, the Subject has questionable notability. For example, places, where he appeared, are mainly interviews and insignificant coverage which do not necessarily warrant his individual notability. Other sources are trivial mentions. Could be worth merging with any of his notable affiliations. Infogapp1 (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Infogapp1 (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. User:Hildreth gazzard (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. User:Hildreth gazzard (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several sources, including multiple reviews of the book The Price orf Football have been added to the article since it was nominated for deletion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not convinced by sources/claim to notability. Giant Snowman 11:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per citing reliable sources. Sources 'are fine for establishing notability and so the subject passes WP:BASIC. Article already demonstrates significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and passes WP:GNG

User: Hildreth gazzard (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on two grounds:
- First, Maguire fulfills WP:NAUTHOR point 3: The person has created ... a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work ... or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The four book reviews now cited in the article, meet this quite clearly.
- Second Maguire fulfills WP:NPROF point 7: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. The guideline goes on to say: Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. The "Studies and other media appearances" section currently cites some 23 different occasions when mainstream or specialist publications (including national publications and several notable enough to have an article here) have cited and quoted Maguire as an expert in his academic field, the financial basis of football (soccer), in which he teaches a specialized MBA course. I have found additional examples which could be added to the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to wonder at the level of WP:BEFORE done by the nominator. The nom statement says that the book has only a single review. I had no great trouble finding four(plus one for the podcast), which makes a significant difference in whether NAUTHOR applies. The nom also does not seem to have considered NPROF 7. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NAUTHOR usually requires multiple reviewed books, and I only see one here. That seems to make a case for redirecting to an article about the book. It is possible that the book together with the being quoted for newspaper articles is enough to give notability for the subject here, however. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NAUTHOR says a significant or well-known work or collective body of work which seems to include a single book. But I think the NPROF 7 guideline should cover tjhis article, althoguh an article about the book could be created. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seem to be two industries where the Subject is being claimed to be notable now. (1) Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and (2) his passing mentions and 'expertise' in his interviews about football, which I have to point out: are self-initiated and not necessarily as a result of someone covering his expertise/works.

Now, when I said I only saw 1 review about the book, I am only seeing 1 Google Books review as of writing. (https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Price_of_Football.html?id=lDiaswEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y). Screenshot here: https://ibb.co/QQjfdzB As @Russ Woodroofe:, we need at least multiple successful books before we can establish Wikipedia:Notability (books).

As for the other podcast review, I'm unable to see any context at all in these reviews, hence it's difficult to verify the nature of those supposed reviews (https://podtail.com/en/podcast/price-of-football/). Should the community decide to keep, I think it's still worth merging it with any of his notable works/affiliations. — Infogapp1 (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infogapp1, where exactly in WP:NBOOK does it say that multiple books are required to establish notability under this SNG? And what makes you think that Google Books is the only, or even the primary, place for a book review? Do you think that the reviews in Columbia University Press, Blues Trust, Times Higher Education and Soccer & Society somehow don't count? Is there some problem with those?

As to the podcast reviews, published podcast reviews by a RS are apparently a bit rare. One is probably not enough to make the podcast separately notable. But I don't understand what context you are looking for. This seems to be a regular column, reviewing podcasts and radio shows, published by a major newspaper and going into some detail about each reviewed item. Just the sort of thing that notability is made of, IMO.

As for the NPROF 7 situation, while the podcast is "self-initiated" (as indeed the book is, presumably) it would appear that these various newspapers and publication went to Maguire and asked him his opinions for publication, because they regard him as an expert, and say so in introducing his comments. That is preciously the sort of thing that NPROF 7 means by ... is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. as I see it. In a few cases it seems that Maguire has done formal studies of particular situations, which are then being quoted by news media. In short the media are treating him as an expert in his field. That is what NPROF 7 covers. Do you disagree? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

#1 Wikipedia:Notability (books)"The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." As it was written in January, I'm not seeing many independent reviews by critics about the book, apart from interviews that then mention the book which are still, arguably, self-initiated interviews. For example, if you're referring to this 'Columbia University Press', we need to look into the goal of publishing the said 'review'. By the looks of it, was created to sell the book itself, which still does not constitute independent review (and no monetary gains from the said publication). As for the Guardian article, it may be considered to establish the notability of the podcast and and Kevin Day, but not so much of the individual notability of the subject there was only 1 passing mention of Maguire. The subject may arguably be significant by association (to Kevin Day and the podcast they're in together), but not enough for his own individual notability. — Infogapp1 (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Infogapp1, you say I'm not seeing many independent reviews by critics about the book. The article currently quotes and cites 4 such reviews. You suggest that one, the CUP piece, was created to sell the book itself. Perhaps, but the other three have no connection with any retailer, they are ordinary independent reviews. None of them seem to be self-initiated interviews. They also establish the notability of the book, and thus of the author. You say that the Guardian article does not help establish the notability of Maguire because it only mentions his name once. But the entire article is about the podcast, of which Maguire is co-creator (indeed arguably the senior creator). The who9le point of NAUTHOR is that a review of a book, or other creative work, is a review of the creator, and helps establish the notability of the creator. You also don't seem to address NPROF 7 at all. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just doing a quick search he has been used as an analyst by external media bodies to give his view on footballing finance issues, with the Sunderland Echo the latest. That he is seen as the go to guy for this analysis that he meets wp:author The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums? User:Davidstewartharvey

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 05:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As now is, notability is pretty clear. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suparatana Bencharongkul[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced blp who's claim to fame is being the child of someone notable. The sources are lackluster (and some are misrepresented as being independent) and unreliable. Searching in both Thai and English for sources reveals teh same thing, a lack of notability. Praxidicae (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably undisclosed paid-for-spam. It's surprising that the article was started by user Doug McMaster (a sock of Timlaieditor) at Draft:Suparatana Bench just two months before this version was created. GSS ^💬 14:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per GSS, also this is a non notable individual who doesn’t satisfy our general notability criteria. Celestina007 (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Does not seem notable, and questionable sources. Infogapp1 (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have gone through all the sources used and they appear to me quite independent and verifiable. Just because we are not familiar with Thai does not mean articles are lack of notability. I believe this article deserves to be worked on further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by มีความสุข (talk • contribs) User has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see some non-trivial coverage which shows that she is respected in her field. Nature World News, LA Weekly (Sponsored), Vents Magazine, and Science Times. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both vents and LA weekly are pay for play aka black hat SEO. Also did you bother to look at this sources editorial team? Praxidicae (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Science times seems legitimate, as does Nature World News. If someone could search in her native language, perhaps they'd get more results. Dream Focus 23:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the same website that doesn't identify their guest posts or "staff" reporters? Praxidicae (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Business Times [26] is used in over a thousand Wikipedia articles. https://www.universityherald.com/articles/77310/20200605/suparatana-bencharongkul-spearheading-an-agricultural-revolution-in-thailand.htm also seems like a reliable source. Dream Focus 00:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So are Forbes and TOI - yet at least one of these doesn't identify contributor posts and paid for posts, just like ibtimes. Oh and feel free to control+f WP:RSP for Ibt because it's not reliable. Also the idea that universityherald is somehow a reliable, authoritative source is laughable. 😂 Praxidicae (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the Forbes Thailand article and other reliable sources that four people in the previous AFD said proved it passed the general notability guidelines? Dream Focus 01:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Meets WP:GNG. And for reasons cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suparatana Bencharongkul 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suparatana Bencharongkul --Lerdsuwa (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dream Focus has asked that I explain the nature of the Thai sources mentioned in the previous AfD. The Forbes Thailand article[27] is a profile piece from the magazine's March 2019 issue, written by staff writer and former business editor Ekarat Sathutham. The Thairath article[28] is a profile column from the newspaper's 16 March 2019 print issue. Thairath is Thailand's most widely circulated newspaper; articles from the print edition are more selective than online-only articles. The Praew article[29] is a profile piece dated 25 July 2015, though appearance on the magazine's print edition isn't listed. Praew is a long-standing glossy lifestyle magazine. All of these are long-standing publications and can be expected to adhere to journalistic standards. As mentioned in the previous AfD, I would appreciate an admin looking into the deleted versions' history to determine if COI issues exist. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is a common refrain from some editors, that WP:COI somehow means an article is assumed non-notable and therefore should be deleted. It does not, and undisclosed COI is a covered by (Behavioral guideline) not a policy. I have spent some time adding references to the article. If there has been paid editing or some other COI involved that does not negate the subject's notability. I will continue to make improvements where I can, and I have no conflict of interest. Lightburst (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and appreciated. However, this subject has been a long-term target of sockpuppetry, and you'll find an active SPI case through the user pages linked by GSS above. Please be very sceptical of the content and citations added by มีความสุข. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 05:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not the article it was when we started this AFD. See WP:Before. Further, the alleged WP:COI of the article's creator is an irrelevant fallacy; Argumentum ad hominem. The question of notability is independent of this attack. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, the indentation of your response seems to indicate that you were replying to my comment, but I'm not quite sure, what exactly are you responding to? --Paul_012 (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article was determined to have met GNG when it was nominated for deletion and kept last year. Notability cannot be lost. Ergo Bencharongkul is notable. Samsmachado (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manorama Yearbook[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG. No credible citations are available. Hatchens (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need 3rd party sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent, reliable coverage found. --Alan Islas (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oyoso3[edit]

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

This band doesn't seem notable. I can't find any independent, reliable sources about this band in either English or Japanese. Mcampany (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mcampany (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mcampany (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find nothing in reliable sources, and I was also unable to find much more under their Japanese name, およそ3 . Despite a lot of singles and videos (apparently) they are only present in the routine and self-created streaming services and social media, and they have not been noticed by significant music media in their country or anywhere else. Their Japan Wikipedia article ([30]) is also dependent on their own websites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and Doomsdayer520. I could not find anything reliable about them either. Streaming service entries and social media pages do not establish any notability. The sourcing on the Japanese article is dreadful as well, as it contains Twitter, Facebook and Youtube pages and a blog. We all know that these sites can't be used as sources because they are not reliable. Why are these crappy sources used in Wikipedia articles is beyond me. Of course if there are notable sources, then social media pages can be used too but relying solely on social media pages as sources is a horrible practice imo. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Archer Heights, Chicago. MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archer Heights Civic Association[edit]

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

This is a local organization that does not appear to meet GNG. Google Scholar picks up one article about UNO that does not focus specifically on the organization. This will be posted in the Illinois Deletion Stream. Mpen320 (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Archer Heights, Chicago where it is mentioned already and can have a small paragraph as it does not seem notable enough for a seperate article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The result has become exceedingly obvious. —C.Fred (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Virtue signalling[edit]

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

I believe this article does not belong on Wikipedia, the subject is not about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc. It is a dictionary entry about a neologism and its meaning, usage and history. As per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary Bacondrum (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I object to the reasoning that "the subject is not about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc.", because it quite clearly qualifies as a concept. Also, just because it's about an intangible concept doesn't mean that the article is a dictionary entry. The article doesn't just give a definition: it's inclusion of a short history and examples clearly make this a stub, which is not equivalent to a dictionary entry. Furthermore, this neologism is well-established and has received significant coverage in several reliable newspapers and magazines. Ealuscerwen (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nominator has spent the last couple weeks absolutely devastating the content of this article via removal of significant sourced portions, I'm sure in preparation for this ill-conceived AfD so he can claim that the article is "a dictionary entry". This is an obviously encyclopedic topic. What needs deletion is Bacondrum's participation in it. -- Netoholic @ 03:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

most of what you’ve said here is just to attack me. Please stick to content. That is a personal attack and I ask that you withdraw it. Focus on the article not me. Bacondrum (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has many sources talking about the history and development of the term. I don't see the problem. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment I urge those making their case here to read the relevant policy: “Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide. Instead, the goal of this project is to create an encyclopaedia...Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness.” This is policy not a guideline or an essay. A term, phrase or neologism does not belong in an encyclopaedia.

This is an article about a neologism, a term. As for citations - the article citations are very weak. We cite 6 or 7 opinions pieces, one news article and a dictionary. The only book cited barely mentions the subject "...with urgent exclamations attached, which we might now cynically call virtue signalling." Bacondrum (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main point of WP:DICDEF is not that we should delete things but that "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by." So, the issue here is not whether the topic is notable, but whether it is best covered under another related title. For example, consider political correctness, prig and self-righteousness. Are these the same thing? If so, we might consider merger, not deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep' It is no great problem finding books which discuss the matter. The article needs improvement, and I don't think it really fits as something to be merged into some other article. Mangoe (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a widely covered, clearly notable topic, and the article could easily be improved with more sources. I don't agree with this "dictionary" reasoning at all. - DoubleCross (‡) 15:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NotDic for neologisms specifically covers this. As long as there are secondary sources analysing the term and the use of it - it is fine. "we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term". Here there is clearly criticism and analysis of the term and its historical and social context. PainProf (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are almost all primary sources, the only strong secondary source simply mentions the term. Bacondrum (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is certainly a concept, notability is not determined by part of speech (Jumping, Flight) Zoozaz1 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep notable subject per WP:NEXIST. Note: I object to the nominator's evisceration of the article's content: the nominator has a desire to see this article deleted and it is poor form. Lightburst (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to impression management. This looks likely to pass, but I'll share what I see: This is an article about a neologism. The concept that neologism signifies is impression management, and indeed this concept is already mentioned there. Depending on who you ask (or which of the sources in the article you look at, since it seems people are defining it in different ways) it could also mean ingratiation, signalling theory, slacktivism, self-righteousness, or feigned outrage, all of which we already cover in sufficient detail. We don't need another article on that subject just to apply a meme-ified pejorative. So the real argument becomes about the term-as-subject, which we tend to have a relatively high bar for when we already cover the subject itself. Unfortunately, the sourcing on that end isn't so good. Many of the sources aren't talking about the term-as-subject but about the underlying subject. This happens a lot with neologism articles, where coverage of the word is bolstered by coverage of ... the actual subject that we already cover. For example, Although it has appeared in earlier religious academic works in 2011 and 2010 cites two sources, neither of which mention this term. They're both about applications of signalling theory. The article is also based on several opinion pieces and poor sources. e.g. British journalist James Bartholomew is often credited with originating the term... - ok, what do we cite for that claim? We cite James Bartholomew ... twice (in The Spectator, which isn't bad but is mostly opinion). There are indeed a handful of others that are a bit better, but there's nothing here that couldn't be better served by a redirect (maybe even a selective merge). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: agreed with Andrew Davidson's framing of the issue, but with the view that yes, this topic is significantly different from the other related ones cited by various people in this discussion. The term has specific connotations of conservatism or anti-feminism or anti-left wing protests etc. which distinguish it from its claimed meaning of "someone making statements or actions in order to appear virtuous to another group" (which is the primary purpose of a great deal of human communication, and indeed already covered by many of our articles). — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 11:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or even speedy keep. The subject is worthwhile, and there were references. I came across this deletion nomination while teaching about the subject, and my students and I were surprised to see it was in the process of being deleted. It looks as though the nominator removed about 50% of the content in this article before nominating it for deletion (from ~11,000 bytes to 6,000 bytes in the space of an hour), including much sourced content. These edits are particularly problematic. 67.1.111.60 (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is clearly about a concept. Although initially it maye have been an informal neologism, the term is mentioned increasingly often in academic publications (as a Google Scholar search will reveal). The evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller even published a book about it called Virtue Signaling: Essays on Darwinian Politics & Free Speech. Ariel Pontes (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A self-published book is about the best source we have, yes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the New York Times article, written by clinical researchers, and already included as a reference, is the best source we have. 67.1.111.60 (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So a self-published book and an opinion piece. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article needed work in order to make more encyclopedic, but there is encyclopedic content relating to the concept of Virtue Signalling. Whether that is its own article, or per Rhododendrites in another merged article is up to the weight of the content. Koncorde (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At this stage, I couldn't blame an admin who closed this as keep, but since matters of notability are about the subject rather than the article, I'd like to request that the closer please specify which topic there is consensus to keep. Is it the neologism? That would mean removing the sources that are about an underlying concept (for example, the sources which don't even mention the term). Is it the variation of impression management? Is it an application of signalling theory? ... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is about a concept. I see no valid reason for it to be deleted, and I'm sure it'll still be used. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 01:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per most of the above !votes. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 largest stars. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SW Cephei[edit]

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

This should be a redirect to List of largest stars, but others disagree so a discussion is in order (also the reason I didn't PROD this). Sam-2727 (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect: the star is in the mentioned list although it is somewhat dubious that it has the quoted radius so it may well be removed from the list at some point. Otherwise, it appears to fail WP:NASTRO and the current one-line article gives no more information than is already in the list articles. Lithopsian (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rail transport in Great Britain#Train leasing services. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel Trains Ltd[edit]

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

The project the company was established for was cancelled, thus it never traded and was only ever a dormant company before being deregistered. Article is an orphan with no articles linking to it Hopldoele (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find anything about this in any reliable sources. Definitely does not satisfy WP:NCORP. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? This really isn't a corporation article; it's really about some of the fall-out from British rail privatization, and there's probably somewhere in there it ought to be merged. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The privatisation of British Rail was completed in 1997, this company wasn't established until 2009, bit of a stretch to suggest the two are related. Hopldoele (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the protests in US cities can be traced back to the American Civil War. At anyt rate, the main remark stands: this is a story about government acts for which the corporation in question was merely intended to be a vehicle. As such the article reads as part of some larger story. Not being up on all details of British railroading, I do not have at my fingers the identity of that larger story. SInce you seem to imply that you are knowledgeable, could you enlighten us? Mangoe (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to imply that you are knowledgeable, could you enlighten us? - The fact that I have a working knowledge doesn't make me the a know-it-all as you seem to be implying, at no point did I insinuate, suggest or anything else that I was in any way superior. But as you asked 'so nicely', here is an article about the impact of the privatisation of British Rail. The company appears to have been established to allow the government to fast track an order, I am guessing to circumnavigate European Commission competition rules which would have required it to put the business out to tender, that would have delayed the process.

All that happened was that the company was formed, within months the project was off and a few year later the company was deregistered. In the three sets of annual accounts it filed with Companies House, there were no assets, liabilties, revenue or expenses, just share capital. It never traded, had an office, any employees, a bank account, entered into any contracts etc, basically it was a dormant company from start to finish. If the company had actually done something, then the case for retention would be stronger, but it didn't. It's notable as my big toe. Hopldoele (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "why" of this that is of interest. It looks to me as though it has a bit part in the whole question of ROSCOs. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of reliable independent secondary sources that are about the company. Also my old school friend Eddie owns more DMUs than this firm does! Guy (help!) 11:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere per Mangoe. This is an encyclopaedic part of the history of Britain's railways post-privatisation but it doesn't stand alone. The problem is that, just like both the industry and government oversight of/involvement with it our articles are many and varied with limited structure and comprehensive overview. My initial thinking is that this possibly belongs as a section at Rail Transport in Great Britain#Train leasing services as it was intended as a sort-of ROSCO, but I'm happy to consider other suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to make the most sense. Mangoe (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Could be merged to Department for Transport. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 18:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger to the DoT article is way too high a level. Mangoe (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rustam Serbiev[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. The only coverage I could find on him is based on the fact he knows Khabib Nurmagomedov. ².O.^Boxing 00:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 00:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 00:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 00:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some minor coverage in Belgian newspapers, but all interviews or articles with an interview element, and always framed as him being someone who knows Nurmagomedov. Only had one professional fight, hosted by minor promotion. Not nearly enough to be notable. Ealuscerwen (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some articles about him, with significant coverage. None of them are based on the fact that he knows Khabib Nurmagomedov. Khabib obviously does get mentioned in the articles since he is the world champion and they train together. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustamserbiev (talk • contribs) 04:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC) — Rustamserbiev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Papaursa (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has one professional MMA fight for a minor organization. The record in the article is based on amateur fights which should never be combined with pro fights. He clearly fails to meet WP:NMMA and interviews and proposed sources are not sufficent to make a case for meeting WP:GNG. Article creator is an SPA and may have a COI. Papaursa (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Starlet International 2020[edit]

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

Failed to meet WP:GNG. A non-notable pageant with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Richie Campbell (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. No coverage at all. Ealuscerwen (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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