< 15 October	17 October >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The idea of renaming the article to List of films by Piraya Films seems a possbility. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piraya Film[edit]

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

My prod reasoning, namely that there aren't any sources that show that it meets WP:COMPANY, still holds. This article has been undeleted as requested at WP:REFUND, even though no actual reason for contesting the proposed deletion has been given. Perhaps, Oddleiv Vik had mistakenly asked for the article instead of Draft:Piraya Film to be undeleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps it should be moved to Draft but as of now, 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⁺⁺ 21:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a terrible article and can be improved through the normal editing process. While there doesn't seem to be any WP:SIGCOV of the subject, for film production companies, if they have produced multiple notable films, the company is notable. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very surprised if The Mole: Undercover in North Korea does not bag some major awards in the next 12-16 months. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Meliora You say for film production companies, if they have produced multiple notable films, the company is notable - can you point to a guideline/policy which says that? I've checked NCORP which is the applicable SNG for companies/organizations and it doesn't say anything or the sort. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Yes, regarding provided sources it fails both wp:GNG and the SNG. But they have produced 7 wp:notable film (with Wikipedia articles) and 40 films and have been making films for at least 22 years....sources almost certainly exist. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Including one Oscar nominated film, which by the way has a Wikipedia article for the accolades it has received... — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment,HighKing, I think WP:NORG is the guideline for this subject. Glee^anon 19:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gleeanon409 - correct WP:NORG / WP:NCORP (same thing) is the applicable SNG HighKing⁺⁺ 10:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:NORG examples of substantial coverage includes "A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization,", "A report by a consumer watchdog organization on the safety of a specific product," and "An extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product (e.g. For Dummies)." and I plan to add citations that fall squarely within this domain. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Maybe,~~ for now, open to WP:HEYMAN, we have notable films, but like products for any company that isn’t enough to confer notability on the company itself. @Ad Meliora: I did notice quite a few journal articles on the “find sources” link on the top of this page, click scholar. I also suggest searching for articles that discuss key people in the company and see if they can help, if I have time I’ll do the same. Glee^anon 19:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gleeanon409 for the suggestion. There are certainly a lot of references to the company and its founders. I'll work on adding these to the article in the next couple of days. In the meantime, I suggest resubmitting this article to extend the AfD discussion time. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep, I found almost fifty sources, mostly in non-English publications in at least three countries. I posted them to the article talk page. I think this meets GNG, and more sleuthing will yield even more results. I don’t think renaming is needed, fundamentally it would be the same article with the company information sent to a background section. Better to leave it as is and improve it. Glee^anon 16:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gleeanon409, I appreciate all the work but have you read WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND? Can you please provide links here to the best WP:THREE references. These references are to contain in-depth information about *the company* (WP:CORPDEPTH) with original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (WP:ORGIND). It is unlikely that anyone will to look at 48 references (WP:REFBOMB) especially when the vast majority that I've randomly selected are either mentions-in-passing, are based on reviews of one of their movies (WP:NOTINHERITED) or rely entirely on interviews with sources affiliated with the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that as ‘List of films ...’ we certainly will keep it, and undoubtedly include all the company information. Then I easily locate nearly fifty sources which suggests GNG is met even if less information spread over many sources. There is also that I’ve found sources in four languages across at least as many countries. This too suggests we are possibly only at the tip of the iceberg.
The spirit of these guidelines is to ensure what we publish is accurate and verifiable and I think this article is well acceptable on that basis. They seem to be reputable, notable and even successful, YMMV. Glee^anon 20:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You could rename it List of films by Piraya Films since its mostly just a list with a brief description before it. Seven have their own articles. Or find someone who can speak the language their films are released in to search for reliable sources discussing them. Common sense would be that a film studio is notable based on the films it creates, not random coverage it might have gotten somewhere. Remember, the notability guidelines all have a disclaimer at the top of them which reads: "A film company This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Dream Focus 11:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have no problem with that suggestion, takes it out from the strict WP:NCORP SNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but agree with good suggestion could rename it List of films by Piraya Films. Right cite (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annihilation Earth[edit]

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

I suspect that this TV film isn't notable. The article has been tagged as unreferenced since at August 2010, and consists entirely of a plot summary and a list of cast members. There are no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No viable third-party coverage (or reviews) to be found, not to mention a waste of a good cast. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any significant coverage in WP:RS/WP:IS. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM.— Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per all of the above; fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 19:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moved to draft. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poju Oyemade[edit]

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

This person seems to be well-known but not notable as defined by WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The article has four sources: three of them ([1], [2], [3]) are not independent of the subject because they regurgitate his views. ~~The other one ([4]) comes up blank~~. Googling turns up numerous results but I have not been able to find coverage that doesn't just paraphrase some statement of his. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now been able to access source 4. The website Legit.ng is a big provider of news in Nigeria. So it might be reliable. The article itself, however, reads like a promotion for the subject and does not seem intellectually independent. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails to satisfy WP:RELPEOPLE. Celestina007 (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment reference 4 in your nomination is working for me, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting, I've tried again and it worked. Don't know what was wrong when I first tried. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306 & Modussiccandi, it indeed works just fine & more often than not they seem to be a reliable source but that particular piece is as sponsored post as they come. Celestina007 (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment will suggest for it to be moved to draft, so as to be worked upon because he seem notable with online research i made but the construction and references cited on his article; it unfortunately not adequate at present. Princek2019 (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Princek2019, if you think the subject satisfies any criterion from WP:RELPEOPLE, which I do not believe they do, you might point it out, furthermore if you believe in the very least that they satisfy WP:GNG, you may provide us with any three reliable sources that substantiates this. Celestina007 (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: i only made that suggestions because of the below refences i saw about the subject online.Celestina007

https://punchng.com/poju-oyemades-tweet-ignites-religious-debates/

https://punchng.com/covid-19-shutting-church-buildings-does-not-affect-true-faith-oyemade/

https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/386899-5g-controversy-ashimolowo-oyemade-adeyemi-counter-oyakhilomes-claims.html

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/07/coza-any-man-of-god-who-cant-control-his-libido-shouldnt-go-near-pulpit-can/

https://businessday.ng/life/article/churches-that-dont-embrace-ict-will-lose-out-says-wale-oke/

https://m.guardian.ng/news/cautious-optimism-as-churches-resume-in-lagos/

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/02/tony-rapu-poju-oyemade-others-set-for-the-next-conference-2020/

https://www.tostvnetwork.com/no-one-really-representing-north-south-or-east-everyone-is-fighting-for-themselves-muhammad-sanusi/

https://dailypost.ng/2012/12/03/how-comedienne-princess-embarrassed-pastor-pojus-church-single/

Comment: the few above independent reference i saw made me suggest, it's moved to draft so the author can work on it properly along with the contents.Princek2019 (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Princek2019, please always sign properly & indent properly also because I know you know how to do these things perfectly well so please do not make other editors clean up after you. The first three are announcements, the fourth looks Okaish, the fifth to eight aren’t directly discussing him, hence no significant coverage thus aren’t the standard required by WP:GNG & the ninth is trivial, so in all only one source looks decent hence a GNG fail. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 I don't really have much time at present to get more references but he has several online sources, i still strongly suggest it's been moved to draft. Below are the few i could get among the still numerous online news content unmentioned.

https://www.informationnigeria.com/2017/03/check-15-influential-pastors-nigeria-churches.html

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/07/prominent-pastors-silence-over-busola-dakolos-rape-saga-odd-alibaba/

https://punchng.com/the-gospel-of-style/Princek2019 (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the above sources. The first, the second and the third source are merely a re-statement of his views. The fourth does the same with a bit more detail. The fifth mentions him in passing, so do the sixth, the seventh and the eight. The ninth, again, gives us something he said on twitter and tells us that he delivered a journal. I agree with Celestina007 all the way here. Now, regarding the three new sources: No1. Is better than most of what we have seen here with regards to detailed coverage. Still, independence and reliability in particular are doubtful. No2 is merely a mention in passing. No3. Is about his wife. We have now read dozens of pieces about the subject and my assessment is still the same: there are copious amount of coverage on him, almost none of which is all of reliable, independent and significant. Sorry to restate this, but WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO are not met. @Princek2019: you have not given any arguments, apart from the coverage being numerous, why this should be moved to draft. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify move to draft is valid due to the amount of coverage he has received however you weigh it. It is likely in view of the amount of coverage that he will pass WP:GNG at some time and not passing WP:GNG is not a reason to refuse a move to draft, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, current GNF failure does not in principle prevent the article being moved to draft. There is, of course, no way to accurately predict whether the subject will become notable in the future. I think the abundance of sources could also be interpreted in the opposite way: dozens of low-quality sources have been published on him in the last couple of years and he already appears to be fairly prominent in Nigerian religious life. I don't think it's unfair to assume that dozens more articles of this nature will be written on him in the coming years. The article is rudimentary and there is no obvious indication he'll be notable at one point. So no reason to save this as a draft. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If he's fairly prominent in Nigerian religious life then that is every reason to avoid deletion by drafting for improvement. Your opposition to drafting is an extreme position imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like not to be misconstrued. I won't lose any sleep over it should this article be moved to draft. The reason I'm not changing my !vote to draft is that I don't believe that, having studied the many sources available, the subject will soon be able to meet the guidelines. Whether he is prominent in Nigerian public life, as I acknowledge myself, does not matter as much. If this were simply a case of WP:TOOSOON, I would not object to draftifying. Seeing all this, I think there is a good basis in the guidelines for deletion, while you base your argument simply on the large number of sources out there. You are entitled to this view, of course, but I fail to see how my position is extreme. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Atlantic306.

I checked for more sources on this subject and there seem to be an abundance of sources, much more than what the editor who created this page used and pointed out. Some more time and due diligence should suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deolkint (talk • contribs) 09:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @Atlantic306, you have a decent argument right there. The article creator didn’t do justice to the subject of the article as like you rightfully said; abundance of sources do exist. I initially voted based on the sources currently in the article but I just concluded a deep web search & found multiple sources that if combined together may satisfy WP:BASIC. Although the subject as a religious person doesn’t satisfy any criterion from RELPEOPLE, he is leaning on #1 of RELPEOPLE but he definitely isn’t just there yet. I might change my !vote. Celestina007 (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mötley Crüe. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Tour (Motley Crue Tour)[edit]

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

Non-notable, unsourced concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been tagged as being unreferenced for six months, but has been unreferenced since it was created in January 2014. The tour was previously prodded for being unreferenced, but was deprodded by the article's creator without an edit summary or adding a reference to address the proposed deletion. Aspects (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A third of those shows aren't even in Canada. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rëdïrëct tö Mötley Crüe - We currently have a semi-reliable source with three sentences saying the tour was scheduled (and tour dates that apparently were edited after the announcement was published. I figured there had to be more. There was a time when Motley Crue was huge. A few searches using "...Canadian tour", "...North American tour", "...2013 tour" and a few others brought up more of the same: announcements that there was going to be a tour, lots of SPSs and a couple of local mentions, but no depth to speak of. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Portall (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Their first album was released on a small label, the second was self-released. The sources that should function to place the band in a musical context seem pretty minor. Geschichte (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides the stupid name of the band (I mean, what kind of name is "Portall", seriously? Did they really thought this was a clever name or anything?), I did not found anything about the band. Even with the two L spelling, I did not found anything on Google besides stuff relating to portals and sites where the words appear separately (I searched for their albums "Code Black" and "King of the Mad" - wow, what genius and original titles as well!) The sourcing is also pretty bad imo, one is a website for a metal festival (?) or award (?) which is not even about this band, it's just the homepage, the second is an album review on a site whose reliability looks dubious, and the third is "Aardschok Magazine - Code Black review, p. 54", which looks promising, although since the magazine is not linked in, I don't know whether it's a long album review or just a short one. So I am not satisfied with the sourcing. Also, the article creator only created and edited this article before disappearing.GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First off, many band names are "stupid", and that does not effect their notability. That said, I did a few Internet searches and found zero news reports. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find a superbrief article in De Stentor on a CD presentation [5] and a passing mention in De Volkskrant where the band is part of analysis.[6] Not sufficient (yet) for WP:GNG. Aardschok Magazine defines this as a "local band".[7] These are legitimate sources for data in the article, I'm missing something for Notability. gidonb (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katafalk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominated for deletion in 2006 and kept because of concert activity. While it may be true, it doesn't seem to push them over the WP:BAND barrier, and the records are issued on a rather minor indie label. Geschichte (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is unsourced. There does seem to be some coverage on the band: this article from a non-reliable website is a not significant coverage. This interview from a Wordpress blog, another interview from a different blog. Here's a profile in a Metal archive website. All in all, none of this reliable and does not meet WP:GNG. There is no evidence of them meeting WP:BAND either. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Modussiccandi. No evidence of notability. This is the only reliable source I have found, the rest of the results are the standard junk like databases, streaming links, youtube videos, lots and lots of retail sites, lyrics sites and blogs. Also, the fact that it was kept at the first AfD because of "concert activity" shows how different the standards were back then. Thank God they have improved by now.

Although, I have a question to you all who are looking at this AfD. I also started an AfD on huwiki because this band is not notable for WP. A user there (named Dodi123) cited these sites as sources, asking "Which one of these are unreliable or a blog?" Well, in my opinion, all of them are, with the exception of Metal.de. I know there is a WP:ALBUMAVOID list here on enwiki which is useful - but this list is absent on huwiki, so that makes it tough to decide whether these sites are reliable or not. I know, on WP:ALBUMAVOID, none of these sites are listed either on the reliable or unreliable list which makes the decision tough as well. Another user on huwiki, named Teemeah, said that most of these sites (like Masterful Magazine and Metal Bite) started out as print magazines, then they went online. That sounds promising. But I am still not convinced of the reliability of any of these sites (again, with the exception of Metal.de, which I know is not on the reliable or unreliable list either - but some of the users here agreed with me about its reliability). So, with all this being said, what do you think about these sites? Can any of these being used as reliable sources?

Thank you for your answer. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, GhostDestroyer100, for unearthing all these websites. My impression is this: I agree with you that they all look unreliable and their coverage does not suggest a high degree of professionalism. Now, the fact that some of them may have started as print journals does not automatically change that. The Sun is being published in print to this day and so are many similar tabloids and niche magazines. This does not make them reliable. So, to summarise, I don't think these are reliable. There is another problem I find with many of the pieces from the above list. A number of them are interviews, some seem like self-published profiles. Both does not demonstrate independence of the subject. So even if we were to accept these sources as reliable, there is still doubt as to their independence. All in all, accepting such sources as reliable opens the door to a lot of niche content being deemed notable. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I was right about these sites not being reliable. I know about The Sun's unreliability, despite it being a major tabloid. But tabloids are generally considered unreliable, I think. Thank you again for confirming the unreliability of these sites. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's turn the question around. What exactly makes for example metalbite or masterful unreliable? They review music in a specific genre, and publish it, and they don't get paid for it (read the FAQ), so they are independent reviews and they choose what to review, they don't write about everything. Also: " Usually we interview bands that we find are worthy of coverage. Typically, we don't do interview “per request”, as this would be unfair and problematic". This pretty much sounds like a magazine that has a dedicated editorial team that filters content. Like any decent magazine out there. Just because it's a niche audience and editors here haven't heard of the magazine, doesn't automatically mean it's unreliable. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 13:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Lamine Diakite[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 by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG & NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plays in a fourth-tier football league, which is far from enough to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Also no sign of meeting WP:GNG. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 11:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both general and specific notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG, does not seem to have played in a level to satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL Alex-h (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 11:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Draftify Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. As with most living, young subjects, I recommend draftification instead of deletion. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Zoozaz1 talk 03:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Asianet[edit]

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

Listcruft, fails WP:NTELEVISION, "Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide" and "A television or radio station's article should not contain a comprehensive listing of the station's entire broadcast schedule" If the station article shouldn't have this information, a stand alone list is not appropriate and neither is a merge. // Timothy :: talk 11:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear listcruft. Also, the title doesn't really make sense - "by" would typically mean "created/produced/written by", "broadcast on" is stretching the meaning of the word by quite a bit. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asianet apparently does have original programming; see Category:Asianet (TV channel) original programming. If that’s correct then this can be fixed by retitling and pruning. postdlf (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Almost everything on that list is original programming and what isn't is clearly listed under Dubbed shows. List of original programming are standard for any major network that brodcasts nationally. WP:NTV clearly states that The channel lineup of a national service, such as a direct broadcast satellite company which offers the same channel lineup in all areas it serves, may be valid content. This ticks both boxes; i) It is a national channel and ii) The schedule is standard throughout the country. And I don't see how this article or it's title is any different from List of programs broadcast by NBC, List of programs broadcast by CBS etc. It definitely requires some cleanup such as removing the directory style box of longest running shows and a little pruning here and there but it is definitely notable as an article. Sunshine1191 (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply NTV says, "most television stations that produce original content." There is a difference between broadcasting and producing original programming. I don't see where evidence of producing original content, just broadcasting content produced by others. "Most" does not mean all, "may be" does not mean "will be", and a "presumption" is not a guarantee of meeting guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 12:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Almost every show listed in the article is original programming which means even if the shows may not produced by Star India, they are definitely owned by them and Star holds all the rights to them. In this case both might be produced or might not be produced are speculations and even in the case that production of the shows has been outsourced to individual production houses, they have still been produced for Star. The fact here is that the shows have had their first telecast on Asianet not just in India but all areas the channel services including the UK and Middle-east. Star India is a fully owned subsidiary of the Walt Disney company and knowing Disney there is almost no way they don't have a stake in each and every one of their assets (shows in this case). Rename the article to List of programs broadcast on Asianet if it pleases the nom, but the article is definitely notable. Also, it might be helpful to get opinions by editors from India, who are more familiar with the TV production process in the country. TheRedDomitor (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply see my comment above. There is not evidence that they produce original programming, only broadcast content produced by others. This is not speculation, it what the article state. They do not inherit notability from The Walt Disney Company. The statement "Rename the article to List of programs broadcast on Asianet" is odd because the article is already titled "List of programs broadcast by Asianet". Guidelines never say something is notable, they says they may be, might or may be presumed. In this case there is no evidence they produce their own content and there are not RS showing SIGCOV for their notability. // Timothy :: talk 14:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the TV series articles listed clearly state that they premiered on Asianet, so we don't just have this list's internal content to go by. That and, again, the fact that we have a populated category suggests that this list nomination is at best premature. postdlf (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - whilst the article doesn’t make it very clear, it does appear to broadcast a reasonable amount of original programming to justify the list. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I have already tried explaining to the nom once before at a previous Afd but they either don't seem to understand or don't want to understand that TV production in India works differently in India as compared to the US and the guidelines that have been forged keeping Western TV production in mind cannot be applied here to the T, as they are different countries and different industries. In India individual production houses first come up with concepts which they pitch to a tv channel, Asianet in this case. If the channel finds the concept and cast involved promising they commision the series. While the physical production of the series is handled by the production house, they sign over all attributions of CREATION, OWNERSHIP, COPYRIGHTS, PART-RESIDUALS and DISTRIBUTION to the channel in exchange for coverage of production costs and a small share in revenue/profits and residuals generated. So Yes, even if we take "production" in the literal sense the shows are produced by the channels in-part as they are completely funded by them. And as has already been pointed out thrice above by different editors, 80 percent of the shows in the list have had their premieres on Asianet not just in India but abroad too and are aired and distributed as Asianet original programming. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply as you confirm above, the programing listed here is not produced by them, but is broadcast by them. This happens in other nations/areas as well, but if you feel the guidelines should be changed to reflect differences between nations, you should discuss it there. But this article clearly fails per WP:NTELEVISION, "Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide" and "A television or radio station's article should not contain a comprehensive listing of the station's entire broadcast schedule" — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs)

That's half the truth. Sunshine1191 also stated above that the shows are completely funded by the channel to produce and the channel makes all executive decisions regarding them. Funding is one of the most important aspects of tv production as without money...well obviously nothing can happen. Ownership of the shows plus a significant part in producing them makes it original programming. And this not a comprehensive listing of the station's entire broadcast schedule, it is a simple list of past and present shows aired by the network which is standard for all networks around that world which broadcast originals nationally. Passes WP:NTV in my view. TheRedDomitor (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nom needs to stop flooding this discussion with the same language over and over that he doesn’t understand. Listing what series were originally broadcast on a particular network is not a “program guide” or “schedule”. Whether another company produced it for that network is irrelevant, that’s not what we’re looking at when we index “original programming”. postdlf (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per User:TheRedDomitor.VocalIndia (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Network licenses (though does not produce) original programming which is properly listed here. I have cut the as-always-seems-to-be-unsourced 'upcoming' section per WP:PROMO. Nate • (chatter) 19:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Capitals00 (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody please close this AfD? It has gone on for ages and I think he have enough consensus to keep the article now. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton San Francisco Financial District[edit]

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

The article does not meet GNG or NBUILD. Sources in the article are mentions or brief directory style entries (or the subject's website). BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in depth. The article makes no claim for it being notable. // Timothy :: talk 20:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I live in SF and even I think this is unnecessary. All primary or nonviable sources (save for an 1897 NY Times article). Pretty much everywhere out here has served as a filming location at some point, so it's certainly not notable in that regard. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom + Beemer69 --Devokewater (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ordinary hotel with routine coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's just a hotel, nothing to make it notable. Alex-h (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another hotel — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Pete Rock. And protect. Sandstein 18:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PeteStrumentals 3[edit]

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

Unreleased album, no indication of notability. Fails WP:FUTUREALBUM. At best WP:TOOSOON. John B123 (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article creator has reverted numerous attempts to redirect this album, despite the fact there is little more to be said for now than "it will be released eventually", and despite saying on the article's talk page that they would wait. A redirect to the artist's article is the sensible choice here, but given the edit history, it may not stay redirected for long. It's likely that this is WP:TOOSOON, because the artist is a well known hip hop producer, and it's probable that there will be reviews and chart placings when this eventually comes out. Richard3120 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. I would say redirect, but with the persistent disruptive editing of the article being recreated, if it is redirected, it should be blocked from turning into an article without admin approval.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. If the disruptive editing continues, it might be prudent to salt the title so it has to go through the AfC process. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy per WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pete Rock: For now. Search results return only announcements about it and no track listing. Definitely WP:TOOSOON. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Mauro[edit]

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

Not my area of expertise, but I fail to see how a model who has appeared in one ad is notable. WP:NMODEL says notability relies on:

Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

None seem to apply. Ignoring the dead links, we have only personal promotion sites and a local newspaper. Adding links and details about Clint Eastwood (notability does not rub off, especially from someone you never met!) only pads out the article, which basically is that someone once appeared in an advert. Big deal. Emeraude (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of anything that would pass WP:NMODEL, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk)
Delete no evidence of notability. Less Unless (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for actors or models.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage ball[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Please note that the previous AfD is about something completely unrelated. I do not believe that this topic has enough notability for a stand-alone article and I believe that it does not pass WP:GNG. This was raised here and there was consensus for an alternative to deletion, which was to redirect to another target such as Ball (association football) or Glossary of association football terms#G as well as adding a definition for the term to the glossary. I believe that the entry in the glossary is sufficient so this article is now redundant. The sources provided within the article do not provide enough significant coverage, in other words, there is nothing to justify an article here and nothing suggests that this can ever be more than a dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is also nothing to suggest that 'garbage ball' is the technical and common name for this object. It could equally be called a 'rubbish ball', 'junk ball' or 'trash ball'.

I believe that this can either be redirected to Glossary of association football terms#G or deleted outright but I'm interested to hear what other people have to say. Spiderone 17:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - courtesy ping to those involved in the previous discussion on WP:FOOTY @Joseph2302:, @ChrisTheDude:, @Koncorde:, @RedPatchBoy:, @Crowsus: and @Nehme1499: Spiderone 17:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the WP:FOOTY discussion. Or redirect back to Ball (association football). Certainly don't keep. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FOOTY Talk page discussion ~~or Re-Direct to Glossary of association football terms#G. I feel Glossary is the more appropriate redirect than to ball, since ball is about real footballs/soccer balls not garbage balls.~~ RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually since Handwalla Bwana is the only page that links to the garbage ball page, I say just delete, no re-direct. and just link directly to the glossary on the Bwana page RedPatchBoy (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it's a notable enough concept in the sense of being regularly known as or described as a "garbageball" to warrant a re-direct, and even its use in a glossary is weakly supported as I can't see any sources even use the word. Koncorde (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More a dictionary/glossary term than something requiring an article here. Nigej (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - glossary entry will suffice. Unless someone publishes some sort of study into whether players who grew up using these "balls" are more/differently skilled, I don't think there will ever be any more to say than "a garbage ball is a ball made out of garbage"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't even need to be on the glossary. Giant Snowman 08:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks Spiderone and the others for all the comments. The glossary solution seems reasonable but, as noted by others, the term "Garbage Ball" is not in common use so perhaps inclusion somehow in Ball_(association_football) would work better. I don't think the terminology is as important as the concept. Millions of kids around the world spend hours a day playing with balls like these, and the articles in the New York Times and National Geographic suggest widespread interest in the subject. If garbage balls (by whatever name) can't somehow be described in one of the 6 billion English Wikipedia articles, I think that's a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGTaylor (talk • contribs) 19:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the article can be expanded to be more than a dictionary definition, then I would be happy for the article to be kept. Maybe there is potential for an article somewhere on Wikipedia about how football is played in a lot of third world countries but I don't think this article is the appropriate way to do that. Spiderone 12:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Street football. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Street football as Lord Belbury suggested. The article topic is interesting but not notable enough to stand on its own (without specific publications about it being released any time soon, as ChrisTheDude pointed out). "Garbage balls" are relevant to the article subject, the current sources could be moved along with the information, a proper common name would not be an issue as the info would not have to rely on an article title or glossary inclusion (something along the lines of "An alternative to manufactured footballs is a ball made out of garbage, such as discarded plastic ..." to introduce the paragraph, maybe) as well as improve the street football article. MagPlex ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Masteller[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. A couple of articles in a local newspaper exist - the Monterey Herald - but that's it. Appears to be promotional and quite possibly created by the subject himself, as the accounts that contributed 99% of the material have not edited any other articles. JimKaatFan (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The page's creator claims that the subject's photo is their own work, which I infer to mean they have a personal connection with him and therefore a probable COI. There's no evidence of anything approaching notability as set out at WP:NARTIST. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to keep in light of recent edits. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, article states that Mastellar works are held by Crocker Art Museum, San Jose Museum of Art, Monterey Museum of Art, Santa Cruz Museum of Art and History, Triton Museum of Art, that would mean he meets WP:NARTIST but only if this can be confirmed (article has no references showing this, and i've been unable to find any), so this is a ~~delete~~. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have confirmed three collections, so he meets WP:NARTIST. I added a couple sources. They are hard to come by, as most seem to be mid 90s or earlier; many articles were published -- according to the CV page on his web site. Additionally, much of the article text was a direct match with the same CV page, and seeing as it was all unsourced, I removed it and the previous versions can be rev-delled by a friendly admin if they happen to read this (i.e. [before this version] appears to be copyvio). Pinging @Coolabahapple: and Dom Kaos to see what they think of the collections.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks ThatMontrealIP, that is enough to strike my "delete" as now a keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets criteria for WP:NARTIST by way of the three museum collections that have been confirmed as above. Netherzone (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List of exhibitions spanning 10 years. Work in the collections of several museums. Bus stop (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW DELETE. There literally is not a snowball's chance in Hell this article would survive the AfD process.. JIP | Talk 21:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Cheer Daisy[edit]

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

Minor video game character. No references, no WP:significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. Mostly seems to have been derived from a fandom.com wiki noq (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Princess Daisy. Not independently notable. Please note that the article creator has removed the AfD notice from the article. Spiderone 17:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as others have correctly stated, there is nothing worth keeping from this article. It is entirely original research and the subject is not notable anyway. Spiderone 20:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's hardly even worth a re-direct. This is just a costume change. You'd never find enough sources to establish independant notability of a costume change. This appears to be mostly a copy/paste from the "We Are Daisy Wikia", which purports to be "the #1 support group for all fans of Princess Daisy." I think maybe it should have stayed there. ApLundell (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with no sources. KidAd talk 17:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article about a video game character with a different set of clothes is definitely not going to be notable. Copypasted from another wiki and creator is now blocked on Commons. Dylsss (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is absolutely nothing that should be merged, as not only is it entirely unsourced, but most of the information here seems to either be WP:OR or plain WP:MADEUP. And I agree with ApLundell above that this is not even worth a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally not notable -- Whpq (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - literally a pallet-swap and nothing more, it is in no way notable, and actually has completely false information. I would even consider salting. It is that bad. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a costume for Daisy in Mario Kart Tour and nothing else. Everything else in this article is made up. The costume is too minor to mention in Daisy's article. Reach Out to the Truth 04:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the way. This article is definitely biting the dust but I just had to remove that inane "biography". Good Lord. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 09:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable video game character. It's not even an original character but just a costume swap. JIP | Talk 10:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only is the entire article completely unsourced, little more than the first paragraph contains anything more than either gamecruft or something the author invented by themselves. JIP | Talk 00:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, have you noticed that the entire article has only ever had one wikilink: London? JIP | Talk 12:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Wow, that's bad. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, An article with no references and no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Pahiy (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how many deletes are needed before WP:SNOW applies? Spiderone 17:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Crump (author)[edit]

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

Spammy COI creation, repeatedly moved to mainspace but completely and utterly non-notable "activist" and author. None of his books have coverage, nor does he outside of his own forum, fails GNG and NAUTHOR Praxidicae (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spammy and not factual. He's been quoted (directly and indirectly) here and there, but in some of these publications that only demonstrates that he has these opinions and not that the publications are of any prestige. Plus he is just being quoted as an "expert"; hasn't written for them. Regarding the books, one of those books isn't published yet. The other was self-published this year. This article said it made number one in its category on Amazon, but the source provided didn't say that. It's got 0 people who've read it on GoodReads... also points to it not being widely-read. I found another instance of information not being backed up by a source (his "reporting" being in the Chicago Tribune). Someone needs to go over this with a fine tooth comb and check every claim. There may be more false claims in here and I would hate for casual AfDers to fall for it. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on 2020, everyone knows we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How Do You Know Chris?[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NFILM, unreleased, with no significant coverage online in WP:RS, just a few short notices on blogs. Proposed deletion was contested with comment at the talk page. Captain Calm (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation when/if sourcing becomes available. It sounds interesting, but there's just not enough coverage to show where this passes the notability guideline for unreleased films. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per ReaderofthePack and WP:TOOSOON --DSQ (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON, no wikisignificant coverage found. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments are more convincing. Geschichte (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kasturi cotton[edit]

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

Newly created article that has not been through the AFC process. This is a newly proposed marketing term from Government in India that has been announced as a new name for premium Indian cotton. It is not a thing yet. Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kasturi cotton is not a Brand. Nike is a brand. Coca-Cola is a brand. Lycra is a brand, (that doesn't have an article of its own, amusingly)
Kasturi cotton fails WP:GNG
Kasturi cotton didn't exist two days before article creation.
World Cotton Day is purely WP:PROMO, only a marketing initiative invented only a year before Kasturi cotton was invented last week, not in itself notable. Note that much unrelated/off-topic stuff has been added to this article, breaching WP:OR and WP:SYNTH while this discussion has continued. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 05:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. *Kasturi cotton is a brand of cotton, authorized by Ministry of textiles, India. It does not matter the brand is newly born or an old one. Branding is always about marketing and promotion. We should discuss if it is within the Wikipedia policies or not. Definition of a brand is [[8]]. It is complying with the definition. And Wikipedia have many articles on various brands. Please consider it to keep. I will agree to the consensus. ThanksRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv. This discussion will be decided on WP:POLICY. Do you have any retention arguements based on policy rather than your personal wishes and an external link to something not pertinant? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supima is another brand, it is a superior quality cotton grown in America.https://supima.com/the-cotton RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and this carries no weight. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands. The subject is not my opinion, it is very much notable and verifiable. You can avoid delusive statements WP:LAWYERING. Supima is an American cotton brand so will be Kasturi for India. The reference is for this purpose only. And it is very much relevant. The article is written following the five pillars. Remember, address the arguments, not the person making them. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purposed deletion is a based on the points such as marketing term , new name and not a thing. In retention arguments, my explanations are as below:

Kasturi cotton may need further improvement which are quite possible with the time WP:ARS andWP:BUILDWP, the provided information/inputs are picked from the reliable sources only and cited to take care WP:SYNTH. Brand Kasturi is definitely lacking in age, but age/numbers are not used to judge notability on the Wikipedia. The efforts on this article are not based on a simple promotional advertisement. India is a one of the largest cotton producing country and It is a strategic outcome by the Government of India. The brand is similar to Lyocell for Rayon fiber, Nike, Inc. and Adidas for of athletic shoes, apparel, and sports equipment,Coca-Cola for soft drink., and many more. “ A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.—Jimmy WalesWP:Purpose. This is a piece of important information and should stay there at Wikipedia. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Roxy Sir, I am grateful to you for encouraging me for retention argument, please find reply point-wise as below

1.Kasturi cotton is a brand now, sufficient references are providedWP:SKYBLUE , WP:CANVASS. And The brand identity is a set of individual components, such as a name, a design, a set of images, a slogan, a vision, writing style, a particular font or a symbol etc. which sets the brand aside from others.^[1]^[2]
2.Kasturi cotton qualifies WP:GNG The article is based on reliable, published sources,
3. Brand is an intangible asset, not physical. It does not require time, you think. It is an announcement/launch which is done on one particular day. Brand is a name, term, design, symbol or any other feature that identifies one seller's good or service
4.World cotton day is off topic here, focus should be on subject article. deluding statements to influence consensus decision-making.
5. You are a senior editor, give us one example where the article is breaching WP:OR. You should take care of Willfully misinterpreting policy
6 For your allegation of WP:SYNTH, Articles can be improved during the process of deletion and the information added are relevant to the attributes of the subject.

in a nut shell you are abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles (gaming the system) You should avoid reverting the edits on the article,As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's mission is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally and sourced reliably.But your reverts can affect the information for the Admin. and readers. For example[[9]],[[10]],these are facts Thanks and regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Roxy Please correct your recent reverts related to the subject article, Wikipedia is not what you believe. Keep your thoughts with you and follow the policiesWikipedia:Advocacy, Kindly do not delete. I can not cite more on the article because it is already overly done.

For the importance of staple length And Supima is a brand similar to Kasturi. Book Reference^[3]/ Textile Horizons - Page 7 Year 2005

Supima is the promotional group – founded in 1954 – for American Pima cotton growers , whose product carries the Supima brand . Pima cotton is a generic name for extra - long staple ( ELS ) cotton grown in the U . S . , Australia , and Peru

. You are intentionally doing all this to make the article an orphan, and half meaning. Please correct. And it is better for you and me to stay away from this discussion page and the article till further decision. ThanksRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this appears to be a major government initiative, reported in many reliable sources. It has parallels with the US Supima, and it perhaps ought to be mentioned in Gossypium barbadense. PamD 11:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment a major gvt initiative announced over a video link with no significant coverage except churnalism from a press release. I dont think so. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you don't think or like, what can we do? WP:IDONTLIKE. Your logic is vague and biasedWP:MOSWTW, WP:LABEL.

The subject is mere classification and categorization as Brand Kasturi and the Government of India announced officially that now on the premium quality will be termed with the name Kasturi in the world cotton trade. India's premium cotton would henceforth be identified as “Kasturi” in the world cotton trade, said Union Textiles Minister Smriti Irani, launching the first-ever Indian cotton brand and logo on World cotton Day^[4]. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. Marketing, puffed up with a little WP:SYNTH; references about the etymology of a word don't contribute to the notability of the type of cotton. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Improvements are possible in the pointed areas. Tried to equate necessarily required information only. Moreover "Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source "^[5]WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH Deserves to keep WP:SIGCOV. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS, the only refs actually about the subject seem to be a press release and a couple of news stories based on it. Article could be recreated if reliable secondary sources emerge. Brunton (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are right but the press release is from the the Ministry of Textiles which is the apex body of the Government of India which is responsible for the formulation of policy, planning, development, export promotion and regulation of the textile industry in India. The initiative is for cotton world trade promotion. There are not few stories but sufficient coverage by other secondary sources. The WP:GNG infers if the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And the sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Therefore the topic comply with the said policy. For your mentioning few the policy says "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required. So it deserves a keep. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

^ Kotler, Philip (2009). Principles of marketing. Pearson Education Australia. ISBN 9781442500419.
^ Compare: Franzen, Giep; Moriarty, Sandra E. (2015-02-12) [2009]. "1: The Brand as a System". The Science and Art of Branding. London: Routledge (published 2015). p. 19. ISBN 9781317454670. Retrieved 2016-08-16. This deeper meaning, the core values, character, or essence of a brand, is what Upshaw (1995) refers to when they use the term brand identity. However, that expansion of the meaning of brand identity causes some confusion because it overlaps with other common branding terms, such as brand image, brand personality, and brand meaning. [...] Brand identity and brand image are only two of the buzz words that are used and confused by brand experts and brand managers.
^ "supima is a brand - Google Search". www.google.com. Retrieved 2020-10-12.
^ Bureau, Our. "India's premium cotton brand Kasturi launched". @businessline. Retrieved 2020-10-14.
^ "Wikipedia:No original research", Wikipedia, 2004-05-10, retrieved 2020-10-17

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Time formatting and storage bugs. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Year 10,000 problem[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No real evidence of notability; WP:BEFORE similarly turned up no reliable sources. User Serendipodous did a BEFORE while merging several stubs into Timeline of the far future and also found no RS. Sources are YouTube, source code used for original research, a passing mention in an article on the Clock of the Long Now, and a single-sentence software documentation (for GNU Fortran) that merely defines the problem. The last AfD in January 2008 mentioned no sources that prove notability. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into time formatting and storage bugs which treats the issue more generally, along with all the other possibilities. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into time formatting and storage bugs - the topic would be best covered there. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into time formatting and storage bugs per above, the article is not notable by itself and time formatting and storage bugs is a good redirect target. Footlessmouse (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I know personally of several systems with this problem (they all use 8 chars to encode dates, with fixed positions for each field). However, the likelihood of these systems surviving to 3,000 let alone 10,000 is very low.--Mvqr (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with time formatting and storage bugs : as above // Timothy :: talk 16:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Djinn Patrol on the Purple Line. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepa Anappara[edit]

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

Zero evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG XpediaF1 (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. XpediaF1 (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. XpediaF1 (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. XpediaF1 (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, her novel Djinn Patrol on the Purple Line is certainly notable: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. A number of these sources are already in the article. I also find it puzzling that the nominator states there is zero evidence of notability, when the article is well-sourced and states that Djinn Patrol was shortlisted for the JCB Prize. Possibly it's a bit WP:TOOSOON for an article on the author and not the book, but as I found all these sources in a two-minute Google search I'm optimistic the author is notable as well. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- See Djinn Patrol on the Purple Line. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the absence of a guideline or at least an outcome essay saying that multiple novels are required. At this point there is one. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Djinn Patrol on the Purple Line, since that is notable and we have no evidence she has notability for anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. For authors of a single notable book I don't think we usually need articles for both the author and the book, but I'm happy to keep one or both. pburka (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pburka, Just to clarify: would your merge preference be author -> book or book -> author, in the event this is merged? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For practical reasons, I lean towards keeping the author's page. In cases where an author has multiple notable works (but none of them are particularly famous), I think it's better to have a single article for the author and redirect the writer's works to that page (assuming sufficient sources are available to support at least a basic biography). This writer may go on to publish more notable books, and it would be easier to extend the author's page with more works than to split it up in the future. pburka (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or 'Merge' I think the author meets the standard of notability, but I can also see arguments for merging with the article for her book Djinn Patrol on the Purple Line. Jmbranum (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Djinn Patrol on the Purple Line. I tried to find some context where the author is mentioned outside of the book, but I was unable to. Definitely WP:TOOSOON for the author. W 42 06:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:AUTHOR which does not mandate a count on the number of books. Agree with Robert McClenon. Ktin (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Djinn Patrol on the Purple Line, notability doesn't extend beyond the book. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; meets WP:NAUTHOR. Clearly I need to focus more on my WP:BEFORE. Thanks once again to David Eppstein. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anantanand Rambachan[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. The citation counts on Scholar might be enough for WP:NPROF#C1, but I'm skeptical. For those keeping track: yes, I am nominating lots of articles on scholars of Hinduism and related topics. For the backstory, see Talk:Hinduphobia in academia. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable author on Advaita Vedanta and Advaita Vedanta; The Limits of Scripture is an excellent book on Vivekananda's influence on Hindu modernism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

? Do you mean Keep? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Joshua Jonathan, Care to provide some links to reviews for the book? I just found doi:10.7825/2164-6279.1116, but without more that's not a WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF pass. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 noting that the important cites are to single-author publications. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just added 10 reviews of 6 books to the article. I think it's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asian International School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, lacks any independent secondary sources or references. Dan arndt (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we cannot have articles sourced only to the subject's website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing found in a search; these were all I could find [17] [18] [19] Spiderone 13:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill school. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Crossing, Kentucky[edit]

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

I'm not sure what this is/was, but I don't think it's notable. Rennick calls it a locale in his index, and locales generally fail WP:GEOLAND, as the term usually refers to places without a permanent human population. It's unclear if the name on the topos is referring to a cluster of two buildings or a river crossing further east with no buildings; coordinates suggest the former. I finally got approved for newspapers.com through WP:LIBRARY, and all the results I can find are for Ross Crossing Road, which is east of the coordinates given. The only meaningful Google Books hits I could find are things like this, which call it a locale, but with no explanation (possibly the same thing as Rennick's index). Ballard County's website calls is a "community" with no explanation, but it also calls Turner Landing a community, and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turner Landing, Kentucky for why the latter place is not a notable community per wiki standards. There's a livestock well nearby. The weight of the sources suggests a locale, which fails WP:GEOLAND, and a good-faith hunt for coverage to prove WP:GNG passage turns up no significant coverage, so it looks like whatever this is/was is non-notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not saying it has any significance whatsoever but it is in the vicinity of Clinton and Columbus[20] which is one of the overland routes the Cherokee took to Oklahoma under the overall guidance of Principal Chief John Ross. There are other historical landmarks bearing his name (Ross Landing is one), however I do not see where there is any historical marker near this location so it may very well be a colloquial use or named in honor of Ross at this crossing. There is mention of land, possibly owned by Ross' father in Kentucky at the confluence of the Tennessee and Ohio River which is just north and east of Ross Crossing in Paducah, KY[21]. Could be that it has something to do with that. I agree the sources are scarce and it's hard to say but I don't see where there was or is a "town" or "village" by this name. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm: If you want a history lesson in regards to John Ross and the area this is a good read, "New exhibits explain Cherokees’ difficulty crossing Mississippi River". I'm not saying it saves this article but it does show why the Ross name may have stayed with those in the area. Cairo is very close to where this road/community is located. Cheers! --Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this qualifies as a place under WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Any of the information that Tsistunagiska proposes above would be better placed in an article about Ross the person. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: I find that last comment to be a bit unnecessary. I never said the article should be kept. I know how much Hog Farm loves to research because of their comments and discussions and this was fascinating to look for. Had I said the information belonged in this article then your comment would be valid. I addressed Hog Farm and mentioned they may like to read it, regardless, have a nice day. :) --Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Dawn[edit]

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

Rapper who fails WP:NSINGER. There are some hits in what appear to be RS but not WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps a bit WP:TOOSOON. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lima: Breaking the Silence[edit]

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

Non notable film, tagged since 2013. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to help it pass WP:NFILM. Another editor says it deserves its day at AfD...so, here it is! Notable or not? Donaldd23 (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More wp:before needed - As I said when removing the tag, this went straight to video in several countries, but (problem 1) none of them were English-speaking. Did you do WP:BEFORE in the languages it was actually released in? No, I thought not. Problem 2 is that it appears to be a crap film, but it deserves its day at Afd. Who knows what the German, Japanese or Polish reviews said? The producers, writers & actors etc are serious figures, much of whose other work is notable. Ok this may not be anyone's best work, but it's had nearly 15,000 views in the last 5 years. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did do a BEFORE search and found nothing. If you can find something that would save this article, then by all means add it to the article. As for your comment, "The producers, writers & actors etc are serious figures, much of whose other work is notable", that is irrelevant as WP:NOTINHERITED. I hope you succeed in finding citations to save the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the 3rd time - Did you do WP:BEFORE in the languages it was actually released in? Do you even know the titles in those languages? Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if YOU can find something, go for it. I cannot. WP:DIY. Ugh... Donaldd23 (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't speak Japanese, Polish or (hardly) German etc (any more than you do). But I didn't tag it for speedy deletion - BEFORE is your responsibility not mine. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did a WP:BEFORE, and AGAIN, I found nothing of substance. Have a great day. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But not in any of the languages of the markets in which the film was actually released. Not good enough. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, was that you sitting behind me while I did my BEFORE search? Donaldd23 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish version of this article has a half-dozen references including a few paragraphs in a book, and the German has a couple of references. Did you review those?
As a note, your nomination comment comes off as cavalier, and while AFD is not a matter of grave things, it also should not take the tone yours does. Consider some moderation in the future. --Izno (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Although it is no doubt the duty of the nominator to run a BEFORE search, when the claim is that a BEFORE search has produced no coverage, I feel that an effort should be made on the part of those wishing to preserve the article to prove the nominator wrong. A page view count is a relatively meaningless statistic at AfD; we measure notability primarily by amount of coverage in reliable sources, not by page hits. Additionally, language barriers can usually be mitigated with Google Translate. There are a couple reviews in the Spanish article that seem noteworthy: the El Comercio (Peru) review and the rayray.utero.pe review. The book source has a couple paragraphs about the film. cinencuentro.com looks like it could be reliable though it seems to be a niche website. The German article has this Film Dienst source with a "long review" hidden behind a paywall. Other than that, the New Video source looks like minor/routine coverage. Overall, the amount of coverage is somewhat underwhelming for an American film released in 1999, but I think it might be just enough to meet WP:NFILM guidelines. I think I would support either keeping the article or merging some of it to the director's article, Menahem Golan. Mz7 (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above by Mz7 including at least two reviews so WP:GNG is passed and deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film was released under very different names in different countries, which doesn’t help a search. Multiple reliable sources in Spanish and German have taken the trouble to tell us how dreadful it was, so it passes WP:GNG. Mccapra (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Forssell (graphic designer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. No indication of notability. scope_creep^Talk 10:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable graphic designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:NBIO. 1292simon (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I consider Carl Forssell to be a very outstanding professional in the field of graphic design and he has done work of a very high level which has allowed him to win several awards. I incorporated at the time several references that have been removed from the article, from my point of view unfairly. Two of the references are from Forbes. According to Wikipedia's list of reliable sources, if a Forbes article is written by the staff or has been published in the printed magazine, "are generally reliable". In this case, it was an interview conducted by Alejandro Medina, a member of the staff of Forbes Mexico and a specialist in new technologies. Not all people are interviewed at Forbes. His involvement in a mexican film has also been suppressed with the proper reference. As part of the text and references have been removed, the article remains empty and cannot be shown to be of interest. It is a pity that there is this kind of discrimination in Wikipedia and that the same criteria is not used for everyone. The editor who cleaned up the text has not allowed me to put back these references and information about this person. So, if anyone wants to help defending it, I will be very grateful.--Fittipaldi92 (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forbes sources are low-quality references and are identified by the software as low-quality by showing up in red when the page is rendered. They haven't been suppressed. They have probably removed as they are junk. If the person was really notable, there would be plenty of coverage. So to suggest that there is discrimination in Wikipedia, is a bit disingenuous and beyond the pale. scope_creep^Talk 14:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Forbes is not considered a reliable source. Fittipaldi92's above accusation of discrimination is an unwarranted smear on the people who have judged that the topic is not currently notable. 1292simon (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if my words may have offended some editors. It was not my intention. I consider the work we all do to be absolutely respectable. I simply wanted to put on record that in the Wikipedia source list it is written that Forbes was reliable if it was the print edition and the article written by a staff member. But it's clear that this source doesn't have much of a reputation, so I'm forgetting about it. And to something else. --Fittipaldi92 (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a designer doing regular jobs as most designers do. I am skeptical that the awards are significant. An English search did not return any convincing coverage. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found nothing online in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources to substantiate this designer's notability. There was a lot of social media which does not count towards GNG. Netherzone (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Looks like the discussion ran out of steam Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry D. Thomas[edit]

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

Autobiography with a long history of SPA's and COI. Non notable fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NPOET no indepth coverage in any of the sources here and I can't find any elsewhere. Theroadislong (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A sort of COI thing. Have a look at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Request for independent re-creation of current Wikipedia page for Larry D. Thomas as well. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've spent some time searching for useful references and failed. I was drawn here by the Streisand effect at the Teahouse, and this: I have had a Wikipedia page for many years (under the name of Larry D. Thomas). This morning, I noticed on my page that a box was added indicating that my page has multiple issues. Would it be possible for my page to be independently re-created to absolve the issues noted? which suggests that the page as it stands is a COI minefield.
The awards won are very local, even though Texas is a somewhat large tract of land, and the coverage is woeful. One reference does not refer to the gentleman at all and another is a 404 error. It seems clear that there has been no notability gained since the article was created way back when. Fiddle Faddle 19:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possible additional source but paywalled, so I can't tell how independent/reliable it is and I can't tell if it provides WP:SIGCOV or not:
Ruffin, Paul. "Texas Poet Laureate: a conversation with Larry D. Thomas." Texas Books in Review, vol. 27, no. 2-3, 2007, p. 20+. Accessed 8 Oct. 2020. (preview)

This looks like a pretty selective award, albeit a state-wide one not a national one. I found this through a Google Scholar search for "Larry D. Thomas" poetry.

By the way, I was also drawn here by the Treehouse conversation. Streisand effect indeed.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above discussion. Balle010 (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this may have been created by someone with a COI, I'm finding evidence that Thomas is indeed notable. The biggest issue is that a lot of the coverage was during that period in the early 2000s when not all coverage was put on the Internet. I'm still searching, but what I am finding does point towards notability and more sourcing. I also have to argue that being the Poet Laureate for a state is fairly significant. If it doesn't grant notability on achieving this alone (my stance), it would at least grant partial notability. This will definitely need to be cleaned up for readability and to ensure neutrality, but I don't think that it should be outright deleted. I also added some reviews for his work - there doesn't seem to be any COI as far as the reviews go that I can determine. The given reviews seem to be from a journal affiliated with the Texas State University, which he doesn't seem to have attended or taught at. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that this should be semi-protected and I must stress to whomever is behind the COI: for the love of poetry, please do not edit the article directly. Suggest additions via the article's talk page, the Teahouse, or through WP:POETRY. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we do not enforce our rules against COI by removing articles created through it we open up Wikipedia to being overrun by COI. We need to fight this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE FROM LARRY D. THOMAS: Although I was not the creator of my Wikipedia page, almost all of the changes I made to the page were to note additional book publications (in print and online) as they were published. I, most unfortunately, was not aware that it was inappropriate for me to make any changes to my page. I sincerely apologize for doing this, and will definitely refrain from doing so in the future. 73.98.126.125 (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. --Devokewater (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm going to drop a note on the poetry WP just to see if they can help find additional sources. I'm also concerned with COI being one of the main drives to delete a page, particularly after I've gone through and done quite a lot of cleanup. Thomas himself has been trying to follow guidelines and rather than making the changes himself, he's been asking for corrections through other people - these have all been fairly minor changes, as it was just removing a book erroneously attributed to him and correcting a job title. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to start trouble with this, just saying that I'm uncomfortable since I can't help but wonder if there would be more of an argument for keeping this if there wasn't a COI. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's part of the reason why I think input from the poetry WP could be helpful when it comes to sourcing and rationales. If they deem Thomas non-notable then that will help assuage my concern.

Weak keep after ignoring potential COI. 1) poet laureate is a pretty prominent decoration 2) sourcing includes: profile in a local paper, reviews ([22], [23], [24] and more cited in the article) profile in Houston Chronicle. I don't think it's clear notability, but what is established is that he's a somewhat prominent poet in Texas (which by the way is a huge state), and I think a borderline pass of WP:NCREATIVE and WP:GNG. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Compassion International. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compassion Australia[edit]

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

Can't find good secondary sources, relies on primary sources Investigatory (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacking references. Search does not bring any reliable results. -- Whiteguru (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Compassion International if there is insufficient consensus to keep this article, as a valid alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Into The Arms of Danger (2020 Film)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable film, so fails WP:NFILM only "coverage" appears to be from Lifetime fanblogs. Praxidicae (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contains notable actors already listed on wiki, one of which is an Oscar nominated actor. Successfully distributed nationally and is currently airing internationally (see references), also available on Amazon Prime https://www.amazon.com/INTO-ARMS-DANGER-Inc-Entertainment/dp/B08BF1RB5R

There are thousands of films on wiki that are far less notable AndrewBrea1866 (talk

AndrewBrea1866 notability isn't inherited. Praxidicae (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be several independent verifiable reviews covering the film that are cited within the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to point out which? Because I see fanblogs and non-rs. Praxidicae (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For further clarification, I can't tell what reviews you're referring to, Donaldd23:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11962590/		ugen, not reliable	just a listing and not rs	✘ No
https://www.amazon.com/INTO-ARMS-DANGER-Inc-Entertainment/dp/B08BF1RB5R				✘ No
https://www.mylifetime.com/movies/into-the-arms-of-danger	Lifetime movie listing	~ it's reliable in terms of casting information and summary, but not for anything else		✘ No
https://www.vudu.com/content/movies/details/Into-the-Arms-of-Danger/1459650		not sure how a film link can be a reliable source other than proving it exists	not coverage in the slightest	✘ No
https://villainous-beauties.fandom.com/wiki/Momma_(Into_the_Arms_of_Danger)		It's a fanwiki		✘ No
https://hiddenremote.com/2020/03/16/into-the-arms-of-danger-craziest-moments/	?	This is a TMZ version of lifetime movie reviews		✘ No
https://lifetimeuncorked.com/2020/03/16/into-the-arms-of-danger-2020-lifetime/	?	a lifetime movie fan blog		✘ No
https://vocal.media/criminal/lifetime-review-into-the-arms-of-danger		Another variant of medium.com		✘ No
https://letterboxd.com/film/into-the-arms-of-danger/		A simple listing that appears to be based off of other wikis and imdb		✘ No
https://www.programme-television.org/films-telefilms/action-aventure/la-famille-du-peche	just a listing			✘ No
https://www.linternaute.com/television/telefilm-la-famille-du-peche-p5069398/	same as above			✘ No
https://cinestera.com.br/ambulancia-do-terror-lifetime-movies-apresenta-jovem-feita-refem-por-uma-familia-de-psicopatas/	?	? unlikely to be reliable in the context of independent reliability with editorial oversight as it appears to allow any joe to write reviews		✘ No
https://www.cineplayers.com/filmes/ambulancia-do-terror	listing, again			✘ No
https://filmow.com/ambulancia-do-terror-t297369/	listing, again			✘ No
https://filmow.com/ambulancia-do-terror-t297369/ficha-tecnica/	same as above			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Praxidicae (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae I do not agree with your assessment of the provided citations and find them unfair. More citations have now been added, and I will continue to do so. Here's IMdB's brief list of external articles: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11962590/externalreviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt Thanks and appreciate your help! AndrewBrea1866 (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RSP. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to reiterate for the closer, my extensive review of sources and the lack of policy based keeps here and non response when asked what reliable sources they are referring to. Praxidicae (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more citations of external press articles and tried to clean up some of the citations. Please let me know if it would help if I deleted the noncontributory citations. Thank you again. AndrewBrea1866 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources fail WP:RS and this fails WP:GNG. Praxidicae did a good job at summarizing in the table above, I went through and completely agree with her assessment, this should be deleted. -- Dane ^talk 21:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but the sources have been updated and changed and the assessment table above is no longer relevant AndrewBrea1866 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AndrewBrea1866 I have already explained this numerous times but movie listings, sites like iMDb are neither reliable nor do they lend themselves to notability. The new sources you've added are a mix of obvious press releases and listings. Praxidicae (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That is very solid reference analysis by Praxidicae. scope_creep^Talk 12:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ATP Images[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination. The article has been tagged WP:A7 for a couple of days, but I'm not entirely sure it meets the criteria, so I think it's best to just have a discussion here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I saw the website.The article is badly written in a way that makes that look non-notable. But as an international photo agency, it can be keep and developed. As Arthur Thill is a notable photographer and world press photo winner, I think it's better to be developed, not to be deleted.--Sajjadimanian (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC) — Sajjadimanian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - there are almost no secondary sources reporting on this company. Please note that articles about 'Arthur Thill' (who doesn't seem to be notable either) do not prove that this company is notable as notability is not inherited. Does not pass WP:ORGCRIT Spiderone 10:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They have a great archive of Olympics and World Cups and lots of major events. Also, Arthur Till is a World Press Photo winner, which makes him notable. I don't see any reason to delete this article. But I believe it can be imporved with more references.--MHosseinafshar (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if Arthur Thill was the most famous photographer ever in the history of the world, he isn't the topic of this article and this article is not about him but about the company. If Arthur is famous, go and create an article about him. As for the company - 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⁺⁺ 21:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per HighKing. 1292simon (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherited from awards for an individual who is also associated with the company. My searches are not finding evidence that the company is notable. AllyD (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dødpop[edit]

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

Truly obscure indie label. Previously nominated for speedy deletion and proposed deletion. Geschichte (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage (in any language!) 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⁺⁺ 21:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Termo Records[edit]

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

Indie label. Lack of in-depth non-trivial, independent coverage in sources. Geschichte (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage (in any language!) 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⁺⁺ 21:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Jędrowski[edit]

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

nnonnotable author whose debut book made a bit of blip. Notabilityu claim is WP:SINGLEEVENT; notability should be WP:NOTINHERITED. All references are book reviews, and the author is mentioned in passing, with minimal detail, mostly related to the book and its writing. Staszek Lem (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Glee^anon 19:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:AUTHOR #4 (c) "The person's work (or works) . . . has won significant critical attention" --and by no means entirely or even mostly, as one user implied, in LGBT media. Many authors of one novel have wiki entries, John Kennedy Toole a good example. ping User:Nihil novi and User:Sadads - could I ask you all to weigh in on whether an author of one novel that receives widespread review in mainstream media may not stay? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigetastic (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move with a "redirect" to Swimming in the Dark, way too soon for an article on this author who does not (yet?) meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NAUTHOR (i do not agree that the novel is "significant", if book awards are won though), but can have an "author" section in their wikinotable novel article (to be broken out when Jędrowski achieves more). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:NAUTHOR (multiple reviews of his book). I think it makes more sense to have the article at his name rather than the book title because his personal background is significantly discussed by sources, but either way, it should not be deleted. (t · c) buidhe 04:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets GNG. I found:
- Cook, L., Eppen, M., West, L., Lewis, M., Vagg, M., Woledge, M., ... & Grace, J. (2020). Fiction {Book Review}. Good Reading, (Apr 2020), 36.
- Mortimer, Gavin (2020-08-30). The SAS in Occupied France: 2 SAS Operations, June to October 1944. Pen and Sword Military. ISBN 978-1-5267-6965-7.
- "Books in Review". World Literature Today. 94 (2): 77. 2020. doi:10.7588/worllitetoda.94.2.0077.
- Taras, R. (2020). World Literature Today, 94(2), 88-89. doi:10.7588/worllitetoda.94.2.0088a
- "Tomasz Jedrowski's Debut Novel Tells Teenage Love Story In '80s Poland". NPR.org. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- "In brief: As If By Chance; Swimming in the Dark; Plume – reviews". the Guardian. 2020-02-23. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- Woodhead, Cameron (2020-03-27). "Fiction reviews: Swimming in the Dark and three other titles". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- Delany, Ella (2009-12-01). "Law Programs for an Interconnected World (Published 2009)". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- "'Swimming in the Dark'; a balanced, ideally paced novel". The Bay Area Reporter / B.A.R. Inc. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- Tribune, Claude PeckStar. "Debut novel examines a forbidden love in Poland". telegram.com. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- "QUINN ON BOOKS: "Black Lives Matter"". Red Hook Star-Revue. 2020-07-03. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- Seward, Mahoro (2020-09-02). "The exhibition showcasing Russia's LGBTQ+ diversity". i-D. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- "Your guide to LGBTQ literature to read this Pride Month". Vogue India. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- Woodhead, Cameron (2020-03-27). "Fiction reviews: Swimming in the Dark and three other titles". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- "In brief: As If By Chance; Swimming in the Dark; Plume – reviews". the Guardian. 2020-02-23. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- "Bibliophile | 'Swimming in the Dark' shares cross-cultural love story". OUTInPerth - LGBTIQ News and Culture. 2020-03-01. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- "New on the book shelf: June 6, 2020". The Daily Journal. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- May 22; Pm, 2020-2:35. "Reviews: 'American Sherlock,' by Kate Winkler Dawson, and 'Swimming in the Dark,' by Tomasz Jedrowski". Star Tribune. Retrieved 2020-10-18. ((cite web)): |first2= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
- "Saturday 8 February 2020 - The Monocle Minute". Monocle. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- "Novels from Poland, Norway and Crescent City". ABC Radio National. 2020-03-18. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- Honigmann, Meg (2020-07-13). "#BazaarBookClub: 10 modern love stories to read now". Harper's BAZAAR. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- Koehler, Mimi (2020-06-13). "LGBTQ+ Alphabet Recommendations: G for Gay Fiction". The Nerd Daily. Retrieved 2020-10-18.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
- "Spring 2020 book season reading list". The Bay Area Reporter. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- "9 Books Perfect For Mother's Day & You'll Want To Read Them Too". Bustle. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
I’m sure more is available. I agree this should stay as a BLP and let the book section grow here. Glee^anon 17:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per The Guardian, Vice, and The Sydney Morning Herald, quite easily found, among others. Right cite (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am still a bit iffy with this per WP:ONEEVENT. As I said before, his book is notable, and soft redirecting this article to the article about the book, and rstoring it once he publishes something else that also generates coverage, may be best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we have a good article already why bother? Glee^anon 08:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When working up the piece, I avoided politics, but the establishment in Poland of LGBT-free zones and pres Duda's comment that “LGBT ideology” is “more harmful than Communism” both give the writer and the book additional relevance in the way, for example, that “To Kill a Mockingbird” (another one-book author until the year of her death) would not have been as widely read had it not reflected the Civil Rights movement in the Deep South in the ‘50s and ‘60s. Nigetastic (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s reasonable context to add but to avoid coatracking and synthesis you have to use sources that cite him in relation to that content. Otherwise leave it out. Glee^anon 14:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vice's article is mostly about the political context of Jedrowski's writing the novel just now. (The idea wasn't mine.) My intention was to keep the article narrowly focused on the world of letters. But if the suggestion is that the article as-is doesn't have enough relevance, a sentence about the novel's past and contemporary political dimension citing the Vice article might resolve the relevance objection, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigetastic (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the article is likely safe. I would go ahead and add relevant context as it serves the reader understand the subject. Glee^anon 15:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an additional paragraph, something brisk that puts the author's work into some wider cultural and political context. I hewed closely to the three citations (Vice, WaPo, the Economist, no LBGT specialty periodicals) that I used. As always, I'm flexible about the wording. With hope this illuminates why the author and this debut novel got an unusual amount of attention and settles any qualms about the novelist's relevance.Nigetastic (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 04:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control[edit]

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

This appears to be mostly original research using primary sources. Are we sure the article subject is actually notable? It's a task force that produced a report that was never published. —valereee (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn The problem I think was that googling the article title didn't work; the name of the task force was what needed to be googled. I've added several sources to a further reading section. I don't have access to full texts of these, but there is definitely sufficient coverage. —valereee (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Notable subject. DIMPAC (the acronym for the report) is discussed in depth in several books. Staszek Lem (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Staszek Lem, none of the sources seem to be books? They're all primary documents, aren't they? —valereee (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard about due diligence? Aslo, that AfD is not a cleanup? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Staszek Lem, lol, have you heard of AGF? :) Yes, I had searched for books, and I thought that perhaps you actually knew of some I hadn't found on my google search, and I was asking in complete good faith if you could point me at any, as I'm willing to fix the article if it can be fixed. I've done that before, multiple times. —valereee (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Miscommunication, sorry. Please use books.google.com for search, and the bunch of books will be right on top, starting with this one. Staszek Lem (talk)

comment in the meantime I've removed a deprecated source that had been used for much of the article and tagged the relevant assertions for citations needed. Tagged much of the rest for better citations needed, as most of the rest of the sources seem to be primary documents but at least aren't deprecated sources. —valereee (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Franjo Bažant[edit]

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

Contested PROD; 1-His officiated 1 international match was enough for notability as became BIO article such as football player which notable with play at least a international match (even friendly). 2- There are a lot articles in wikipedia as this article (with database sources or without newspaper sources)

Appears to fail WP:GNG; nothing found in a search other than routine listings in databases. No evidence of notability could be found. There is currently no consensus that a referee is automatically notable after officiating in an international. Spiderone 12:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 1 match doesn't cut it. Geschichte (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet WP:GNG, in absence of other applicable notability guidelines. GregorB (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Talbert[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I expected to see "View or restore n deleted edits?" when I looked at this page. While there are deleted versions of Talk:Charlie Talbert, this is not the case with this article.

The 27 December2017 version of this article that led to the first deletion discussion included only an IMDb reference.

The references included in the 12 October 2020 version of this article include five references.

The Racine Journal Times reference is dated 26 September 1994 - around about the time Angus (film) was filmed
The Chicago Tribune reference is dated 19 September 19 1995 - around about the time Angus (film) was released
The Vice Media reference discusses how Angus (film) became something of a "Cult film"
As for the podcasts, anyone can create a podcast

I also note that various assertions in the article about Mr Talbert's appearances in TV shows and films are unreferenced.

In short, it would appear that his acting career was limited to that one movie, and then disappeared from view.

It would appear me that the subject of this article fails any number of Wikipedia:Notability criteria: WP:NACTOR, WP:NBIO and so on.

As always, please let me know if you disagree, and please do prove me wrong. Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Talbert does not meet the inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond51[edit]

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

Music production team with too little to show, so fails WP:MUSIC. Geschichte (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO - run of the mill producers. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete. Geschichte (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Fair Positive Soccer[edit]

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

Promotional article created by an WP:SPA. All coverage is trivial and/or promotional:

[25] advert
[26] advert
[27] directory listing
[28] directory listing Spiderone 09:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, borderline promotional. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Nigej (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This fails WP:GNG, and is pure promotional. Pahiy (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill soccer league. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only source is the mission statement on the website. Only seems fun, fair, and positive to delete it. Copyrightpower1337 (talk) 20:26, 20 October 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⁺⁺ 16:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Adam (alderman)[edit]

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

Article created today about a deceased local politician who doesn't meet WP:NPOL or even WP:GNG. I actually live in the area where he was mayor in 1887 and hadn't heard of him until today. The article is sourced mostly to one of the only two sources. AussieLegend (✉) 08:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AussieLegend (✉) 08:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if it's true that the suburb of Adamstown is named after him then there's some scope to put a paragraph in the suburb article about him. I would be supportive of that if there isn't consensus to keep the article. Deus et lex (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems reasonable regardless of the outcome of this discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything in the national archives on him? If we can confirm the Adamstown that seems like a good redirect, but there's a chance he may have been notable. The article does need a significant amount of cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 11:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I tried Trove but it seems like there's more on his son, also Thomas Adam (who was a well-known resident of Raymond Terrace) than Adam the alderman himself. Some of the Trove sources on his son noted that his father was an original alderman in the (then) Newcastle Borough Council, it does suggest that the naming of Adamstown after him is correct, but I can't find a clear source to confirm. Deus et lex (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - there's more on his son, also Thomas Adam (who was a well-known resident of Raymond Terrace) - He was? I've lived here for 28 years and have been coming to the town since the 1960s and I've never heard of him. I'll have to do a bit of research. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Newcastle is not a global city for the purposes of handing its municipal councillors an automatic inclusion freebie, and the article is not reliably sourced even remotely close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG as substantively more notable than the norm for city councllors. If a better source can be found for the claim that Adamstown was named after him (which seems plausible, because naming new neighbourhoods after local figures is a thing cities do, but requires better confirmation than a primary source), then obviously a small amount of information about him could be added to Adamstown, New South Wales — but being the namesake of a small suburb is not in and of itself grounds for an inadequately sourced standalone biography. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West Side Soccer League[edit]

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

Article created by an WP:SPA back in 2009. PROD was removed back then without providing a reason. This topic is not covered significantly in independent sources. The ones provided in the article are trivial mentions when you ignore the primary sources, which can't count towards notability. I also found these:

[29] - mentioned once
[30] - mentioned once
[31] - mentioned just once
[32] - gets a trivial mention as gunshots were heard near one of the games
[33] - probably the most significant but is it enough? Spiderone 08:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - childrens soccer leagues are ten-a-penny and this doesn't seem to be notable. Nigej (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill soccer league. It's not even the biggest in NYC. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. This AfD was started by a now-blocked sockpuppet account of serial sockpuppeteer Daaask. Since no one else has commented on it yet, I am closing this procedurally. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sundari Neeyum Sundaran Naanum (TV series)[edit]

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

No references are there and also no significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject Kannalane (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kannalane (talk) 07:11, 16 October 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 October 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: Kannalane appears to be a Daaask sockpuppet and their comment appears to be stolen from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zee Super Family. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rolex Day-Date. Sandstein 18:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rolex Stella[edit]

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

Basically PR for a particular group of models of a famous brand. No evidwence its appropriate for an article of its own. WP is not an auction catalog. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rolex. KidAd talk 07:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments: 1) Category:Rolex watches contains articles on ten Rolex models other than the Stella. Do those ten articles justify the existance of the article in question, or should all eleven articles be redirected? 2) The article in question says the Stella " is a variant of the Rolex Day-Date." If so, then if a redirect is warranted, perhaps a redirect to Rolex Day-Date is more appropriate? Gjs238 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 1) Though Rolex Day-Date model is the "parent" category, this variant stands alone as it was originally advertised as the "Lacquered Stella," not the "Day-Date Stella." 2) I've removed several past auctions to lessen PR tone and prevent those who read the article from thinking it's an auction catalog. 3) Redirecting all Rolex models to the parent Rolex page makes for a very cluttered and difficult to parse read-space. 4) The notoriety of this watch model is building due to Rolex's new models (mentioned in the article but not listed here to prevent it from looking like an advertisement). Instyletech 18:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion (Added by Instyletech 3:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to tone down the PR tone of the 'Stella' if that will help, but would like some suggestions as to what to remove, as the articles cited (historical, auction houses, private collectors) are included to legitimize the notoriety of this particular watch model.
The intention of the 'Stella' page is define notability of this watch model and to prevent additional clutter on the already cluttered Rolex page and to differentiate it from the standard Rolex Day-Date.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modifications made to original article (Added by Instyletech 21:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Notable Pieces" section, which removes all but 2 citations to previous auctions, to help with unbiased tone. Please assist with additional reasons why this article should be considered not to be an appropriate article of its own so I can repair.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: 1) Model was never advertised as a "Day-Date," it is just based on the Day-Date. It was originally marketed as the "Lacquered Stella." 2) Removed "Notable Models" section to make it seem less like a catalog. 3) Suggested that we keep the individual model pages separate due to unorganized clutter on Rolex page. I'd like to make changes to that in the near future. 4) Additional notoriety for the Stella due to new Rolex models. Instyletech 16:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with a "redirect" to Rolex Day-Date, availabe references do not warrant a separate article on every variation of this watch, also given the size of the target article, there would be no problems with some/all of the models listed at Rolex Day-Date#Related pages to also be merged with the parent article. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dhuusar[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Awards won don't appear to be notable. Among the cited sources, [34] looks like significant coverage at a glance, but on a closer look it was written before the film's release and virtually all information about the film is provided in quotes from people involved with the film. [35] does not appear to be a reliable source, and some of the content draws its independence into question. The other sources provided are primary sources from film festivals. I was unable to find anything more when searching online; I also tried searching for it in Bengali but I could have missed something due to a lack of proficiency. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Edited the article to delete the segment about the awards won, as pointed out by reviewer Rosguill. Edited the article and added 12 sources supporting the title through the involvement of the lead character (Ritwik Bhowmik) and another primary character (Senjuti Mukherjee). The following are the used sources. ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]. Title can be found as 'Gray' (literal translation) in the reference [10] as the source is in Bengali language. Edited the article to also link the lead, Ritwik Bhowmik's name to his Wkipedia page. Storiesbysoumi (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Storiesbysoumi[reply]
The above sources are, without exception, trivial coverage. Name dropping the film in the context of an actor's filmography (and largely just one actor, Ritwik Bhomik) is not the kind of coverage we need to justify the creation of an article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Is there another alternative to deletion that you could advice for this article? Particularly due to the fact that the film, being a low budget independant film which is still doing rounds at various international film festivals, will ultimately be distributed and have the needful coverage as per your policies and criteria. Storiesbysoumi (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly not at this time. There's draft space, but articles are sent there when we anticipate that the article could be fixed by active editing in short order, not to sit and wait for sources. That having been said, if the article is deleted and sources establishing notability become available at a later date, you can always make a WP:Request for undeletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; my main concern is that there are no reviews and a complete lack of coverage after the film was released. [36] [37] These two sources are fairly good for coverage but were written way before the film's release. It seems odd that no more recent sources exist. Spiderone 08:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some of the arguments here struck me as a bit odd. Definitely notable, well sourced, even if it didn't have a wide release or wide coverage. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medfield College[edit]

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

Disney trivia and fancruft that has no significant third-party coverage to warrant its own article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Few mentions in passing. Fails WP:NFICTION _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem here is this is really just a shared name. The works in question never actually connect all the events at Medfield College/films set there into one coherent whole. This is a name used for convience of not coming up with a new one, not really a shared setting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Cowling[edit]

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

Non-notable actor with small filmography of minor roles and no reliable third-party coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Macdonald-Radcliff[edit]

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

The subject has held several impressive positions, but none of that seems to have produced independent coverage in secondary sources. PROD'ed by Mccapra, dePROD by Tillander, asserting that Anglican deans are generally notable. WP:CLERGY (which is an outcomes supplement, not a guideline) suggests that bishops, a higher rank of clergy, are where the usual notability cutoff lies. Based on that and the lack of sufficient coverage, I'm bringing this article here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find out about how deans have been treated elsewhere on Wikipedia. In the meantime I'd note that someone at WikiProject Anglicanism (not me) has already rated the article as of "Mid-importance". Tillander 19:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a lot of pages for deans, but I will look into this further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Church_of_England_deans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Church_of_England_dean_stubs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deans_in_the_Church_of_England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anglican_deans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anglican_deans_in_Africa It might be useful to seek the advice of someone associated with WikiProject Anglicanism, of which I have only a limited knowledge. Tillander 19:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the lack of coverage in reliable independent sources. Some deans may be notable for particular reasons so there are surely articles about them, but the mere fact of being a dean does not make someone notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hundreds of Anglican deans have Wikipedia articles, and a sampling of them will quickly show that most of them have them simply by virtue of being or having been deans. Here's a fairly random example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Eyre_(priest) Tillander 20:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have enough independent coverage from what is set out in the article, and has been involved in other organisations above and beyond his role as a Dean. Deus et lex (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a British government advisor, not just a dean.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on my research this man seems to more than satisfactorily meet notability according to Wikipedia standards.--SenseiSinatra (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a highly-placed cleric and advisor. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep votes don't seem based on sourcing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the Keep votes don't bring up any actual sourcing, and from a BEFORE search I was not able to find any. The sources currently in the article are all primary sources, with the possible exception of the paywalled financial times article, which likely does not provide SIGCOV anyways, and as a result he fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, and he also fails WP:CLERGY. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is ludicrous that someone with a prominent work both in and outside of the church should be considered for deletion. Deletion is not cleanup, if the article needs fixing then it should be, but that doesn't suggest notability. Spartaz was not right to relist this when there is no consensus for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - note also that for his role in Cairo most sources are not likely to be in English. Deus et lex (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:CLERGY and would likely pass WP:GNG if arabic sources were examined. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep two tuppences worth. scope_creep^Talk 12:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Star Suvarna[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet GNG, fails WP:NTELEVISION, "Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide" and "A television or radio station's article should not contain a comprehensive listing of the station's entire broadcast schedule" If the station article shouldn't have this information, a stand alone list is not appropriate and neither is a merge. // Timothy :: talk 11:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Most of the shows listed in the article are original programming. Just because each show does't have a separate article doesn't mean that the channel isn't notable. WP:NTV guidelines state that a network is notable if it broadcasts nationally and it's lineup is constant across its broadcast area, both of which are true in this case. And the only reason why there are a few acquired shows on that list is because the production of originals was stalled during the lockdown and programming voids had to be filled. Definitely needs a little pruning but is notable as a tv channel. Sunshine1191 (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: There is no evidence that they produce original programming, only broadcast content produced by others. This is not speculation, it what the article state. They do not inherit notability from The Walt Disney Company. The statement "Rename the article to List of programs broadcast on Asianet" is odd because the article is already titled "List of programs broadcast by Asianet". Guidelines never say something is notable, it says they may be, might or may be presumed. In this case there is no evidence they produce their own content and there are not RS showing SIGCOV for their notability. // Timothy :: talk 14:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As established below at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Asianet a list of original programming broadcast by the network is perfectly acceptable as per WP:NTV and who produced the content is irrelevant. As long as the series has it's premiere on the channel and the channel holds executive rights to it, the series is classified as original programming. So by the virtue of broadcasting originals across the country of India, the channel is very much notable. TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aren’t nationally broadcast television channels normally presumed notable? The article isn’t very good, but based on those grounds, I’m gonna have to say Keep. Foxnpichu (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sitara TV[edit]

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

Article does not meet GNG or NTELEVISION. // Timothy :: talk 11:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. William Harris (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources; if anyone finds good sources in another language, ping me and I may change my vote Spiderone 17:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Spudlace (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep NTELEVISION is the wrong notability guideline for this, as that is for programs. This is a television channel, so WP:BCAST would apply. It would appear the channel meets the NBROADCAST guideline, in that it originated its own programming. I can't verify that it was the "second most popular" channel in that language. If so it would most certainly be notable. I have made the links visible via Wayback Machine. I have doubts the channel was re-established as claimed, so it's notability originates from the 2006 - 2010 time period. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Channels that air original programming are indeed notable as per WP:BCAST but I don't see any indication that the channel did air original programming in the first place. I mean there is literally nothing in the article about the shows aired and web searches haven't been helpful either. TheRedDomitor (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nintendo Entertainment System accessories#Nintendo Entertainment System. czar 17:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roll 'n Rocker[edit]

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

Article is non-notable, having notability probelms since 2014. I have tried to find sources, but I cannot find ones of strong notability. The article itself only has one source. I would prefer redirect to List of Nintendo Entertainment System accessories. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and then move to Roll & Rocker) - Article receives 7 page views per day, has not been tended to much over the years, and some of this may be because it is not even named correctly (according to the sole source being used for this article, the name of the product is Roll & Rocker, not Roll 'n Rocker). Once you name the damn thing correctly, it would appear that there are just barely enough reliable sources, that the article could be rescued. - AppleBsTime (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to build out the article after it's in the right place, following a Keep decision. - AppleBsTime (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I support keeping the article, as I agree that once it's in the right place, it can be revived and improved. However, if this article is brought up on the AFD after a while, I think a redirect would be easier and serve the purpose as well. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 19:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nintendo Entertainment System accessories. The sources provided are just not sufficient to hit GNG for a standalone - hell, one even calls the products "5 More Nintendo Controllers You've Never Heard Of". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Nintendo Entertainment System accessories - Just a random piece of equipment only a few gamers know about/care for. Foxnpichu (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nintendo Entertainment System accessories - According to WP:CORPDEPTH, the sources provided, as well as the other ones I could find are pretty clear cases of trivial mentions. Inclusion in lists are considered trivial mentions. It does not have the significant coverage necessary to merit inclusion. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Günter Lenz[edit]

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

Not enough sources to write an article of substance. Questionable notability. Vmavanti (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki articles on this musician are also available in four other language versions. Lenz led his own band Springtime with which he has published four albums of his own compositions and was a member of the German Allstars several times, with whom he toured Latin America and Japan (and recorded several records).

Maybe there are not enough English language sources to write a better article ("America first"??) without language experts or translation aids, but there are certainly enough good sources available. However, even the sources collected in the article confirm the current text as documented there. In view of the biography article (Grove Music Online), which is already embedded in the article and which states "One of Germany's leading double bass players", I do not think the notability of Günter Lenz is questionable at all.--Engelbaet (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough sources, and they are also cited in the references (Barry Kernfeld in Grove Dictionary Online, which should be accesible for long-time wikipedia-users), and there is also an entry in the Jazz Lexikon of Kunzler (published as book and CD). This should also be sufficient to prove relevance.--Claude J (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added 2 reliable sources which clearly indicate his notability. I will continue looking for more.Less Unless (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several points need to be made, though I doubt anyone will read them or heed them. Appearing in the New Grove Dictionary of Jazz, or in Oxford Online, which bought New Grove, does not itself make a person notable. Notability is governed by the rules of Wikipedia. Being popular in Germany does not in itself mean the person is notable. Or Important or Ought to Be in Wikepdia. That is governed by the rules of Wikipedia.

Every country has its own Wikipedia. No one has been excluded. This is the English Wikipedia for English-speaking readers, not the German Wikipedia for German readers or the International Wikipedia for multilingual readers. Respect the reader. The reader reads English, not German, so it's foolish to use sources in German. The reader can't use those sources. It's also foolish to assume a machine can do a good translation. It can't. It's comically terrible at it. As an English reader, I have no way of evaluating foreign language sources. Neither does the reader. Respect the reader. That's who Wikipedia is for. Them. Not you. Not the subject of the article. An article is not a gift to Gunter Lenz. Wikipedia is for readers. Help them. Be courteous to them. Be kind to them. Keep them in mind. Look past your own desires, preferences, and biases.—Vmavanti (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, every country does not have its own Wikipedia. Different languages do, but one language may serve several countries and one country may have several languages. And why on Earth, as a native English speaker, should I not be able to read in my own language about a notable German? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is being literal to an absurd extreme. Here is what you need to know: List of Wikipedias
Vmavanti (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what does that tell me? That there are Wikipedias in many languages, for example Cornish. Should that only contain articles about topics that have been written about in multiple independent reliable sources in Cornish? Of course not. Apply the same logic to the English Wikipedia. And please answer the question in the last sentence of my previous post from the point of view of a reader. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rules of the English Wikipedia, which say that significant coverage in independent reliable sources does make a topic notable. And out of respect for the reader who may not understand the German sources, although many of us do without the straw man of machine translation, but would still like to read about a notable subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a straw man, it's the truth. And if you want to read about German musicians in German, then you can read the German Wikipedia in German.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a straw man? So who has relied on machine translation to defend this article? The fact that you appear to be monolingual doesn't mean that the majority of people in the world are not. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know me. You have no idea whether I'm monolingual or not or what my reading preferences are. I'm not talking about myself. Are you? Can you see past your own biases? How many readers of English Wikipedia, and in particular its jazz articles, are multilingual? You appear confident enough to know, to make a judgment. So let's see the proof. You know that "majority of people in the world are not" monolingual? I don't know that. But I'm not talking about The Entire World. I'm talking about readers of jazz articles in the English Wikipedia. I will stick my neck out and say most of them cannot read German. If they encounter German sources, what then? They can use Google Translate, which does a terrible job. It's not a straw man. Machine translations are the only option when encountering a source in a foreign language.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources proffered since start of discussion plenty enough to indicate that the subject meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Leaving aside the nominator's assertions that "Every country has its own Wikipedia." and about non-English references, what we have here is an article about a subject who, even just considering his 1960s activity, performed on a notable album (Astigmatic (album)) and was part of a noted ensemble led by Albert Mangelsdorff; these would in themselves contribute towards WP:MUSICBIO criterion 6. Subsequently, he performed with a broad range of other musicians and ensembles, as well as recording several albums with his own band. All of this is verifiable (in English) from the New Grove article about the subject, and brief mentions of the subject can also be seen in snippet views of other music encyclopaedias, in addition to which there are the sources (online and offline) in German and Italian which are detailed in the article; overall, enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi Khosla[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a place to put resume or curriculum vitae WP:NOTRESUME. Pure WP:PROMO. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nomination is by a banned sock. No valid "delete" opinions, hence no reasons to relist. Sandstein 18:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika Aggarwal[edit]

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

There's a fair amount of routine coverage, but I wasn't able to find any significant coverage with actual independent analysis of the subject. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Business Insider reporting that her company is the first unicorn in India, honestly is enough to be notable. She’s raised $257M. This should have been labeled as a stub and a more senior editor can rewrite it. Juju (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Business Insider Resource1 and Business Insider Resource2 have no "Independent Content" (fails WP:ORGIND).CleanAmbassy (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Judge Dredd#Major storylines. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oz (Judge Dredd story)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a comic book plotline. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar, and the super short name of this story doesn't help here. Unless someone can find something I missed, delete or redirect to Judge_Dredd#Major_storylines? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Topic lacks standalone coverage to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect/Merge with an applicable article should one exist - Like Piotrus, I am having a hard time finding coverage in a source check. Dark knight 2149 21:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not independently notable for a stand-alone article as per WP:GNG. Cannot find appropriate sources. A merge is a decent idea if a suitable target can be found. Jontesta (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Judge_Dredd#Major_storylines per WP:ATD-R as a good alternative recommended in the nomination. The story is already covered there. If more content is desired to merge, it can be done from the history provided this is not deleted first. It too was reviewed by Douglas Wolk (a subject matter expert) here [38], so I can be persuaded to keep if there is another review found. -2pou (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A blog review usually does not meet WP:RS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keyword: usually. That is why I made the point that he is a subject matter expert in the field linking to his article; however, I did not explicitly state here that he has published two books in my previous post. The blog post could be used as a RS per WP:SELFPUB meeting whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. I do agree, however, that it is not enough on its own, hence the redirect !vote. -2pou (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Two, twice^talk 02:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1960 political clashes in the Iraqi Cigarette Workers Union[edit]

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

This article only uses one source, a short three-paragraph section of a book. It seems as if it does not pass WP:GNG due to lacking significant coverage. Two, twice^talk 05:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Two, twice^talk 05:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lets move it to Iraqi Cigarette Workers Union. Rathfelder (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd challenge the notion that the event wasn't notable. The fact that the article only had one reference doesn't mean it doesn't pass WP:GNG, notability is not to be judged only on the sources in the article at present but rather what references would be available. See for example: "The severest of all tests came in November 1960 , when , following Communist reverses in the elections of the Tobacco Workers ' Union , thousands of workers staged anti - Government demonstrations leading to violent clashes. They protested that the elections had been rigged in order to defeat Muhammad Ghabban , the militant President of the Tobacco Workers ' Union . Several workers were killed or injured and more than a hundred arrested in the course of the conflict."^[13] --Soman (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Soman. There are good sources covering the topic in-depth. The subject is of key importance to the history of Iraq and Wikipedia has an admitted WP:BIAS against topics outside of Europe and North America of which we must be conscious.--User:Namiba 12:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Mathewson[edit]

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

Being alderman on a small city council doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and the Facebook page incident during a protest is a clear case of WP:BLP1E, with no lasting coverage of him following the protests, and no other indication of independent notability. He gets barely a mention in Kenosha unrest, and there's no potential for future expansion now that he's left politics. Captain Calm (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: further coverage by Neil MacFarquhar of Mathewson in the New York Times on 16 October 2020. It is preferable to have an article on Mathewson rather than the "Kenosha Guard", which never really existed. Mathewsons actions had an impact, and there is every reason to think more material will come out as the events of that time are investigated. Leutha (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator on the WP:BLP1E issue, and he's not otherwise notable per WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 11:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being on the Kenosha City council is not a sign of notability nor is anything else he has done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, only received coverage for one incident where he behaved like a deranged loon. As far as I can tell his "Kenosha guard" is not mentioned at the Kenosha protests article, meaning this is not a useful redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kenosha isn't a global city for the purposes of securing the "inherent" notability of its city councillors under WP:NPOL #2, and the Kenosha Guard stuff just makes him a WP:BLP1E rather than a person who would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. I do not know why my searches are turning up blank, but it is good to know that there are reliable and significant coverage on this topic. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sammitr[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY - A quick search on Bing News pulls up nothing. A search on Google News brings up several trivial mentions of this company. If there are offline sources that are inaccessible, then it probably does not fail this notability criterion. Aasim (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Aasim (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Aasim (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the country's leading companies in the industry, whose business operations are regularly reported on by the press including the Bangkok Post[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] and The Nation[48][49][50][51], and have been the subject of academic studies.[52][53] Thai-language sources are numerous.[54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64] --Paul_012 (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Anchor Albert[edit]

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

Article written primarily by what appear to be WP:SPAs on an LA lawyer and Catholic layman. Sources cited are either self-published or mention Albert in passing only. Some are completely unverifiable (citation for "He was the primary architect of the Archdiocese's landmark Report to the People of God..." is just a PDF of the document with no mention of Albert). Overall fails WP:NOTABLE. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – All the article's sources are either of poor quality or only mention him in passing, and I couldn't find any independent coverage of him on Google. Ovinus (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, accomplished but not notable. The tone, which can be cleaned up, is problematic as well. Caro7200 (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Centra Tech[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS this token (now defunct) shouldn't be covered, since it is, and can only be interesting for its single appearance in news stories. Only notable source is the NYTimes which researched and covered this event. While well-researched, it does still not warrant an article, because it is just a single event. Ysangkok (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT. KidAd talk 02:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schloß Pompon Rouge[edit]

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

Non-notable erotic TV series. Only one sentence in article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has been expanded now, meets WP:TVSHOW, nontrivial sources exist. —Kusma (t·c) 09:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Destubbed, notable series.† Encyclopædius 10:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering it aired a national network and it was one of the first series of its type after German reunification, it's a good keep. Great WP:RESCUE on this, Encyclopædius. Nate • (chatter) 15:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny Fabulous[edit]

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

The article does not seem to meet notability criteria. I was unable to find any reliable sources in the article itself, and also no reliable sources showed up after a quick Google. Martin Urbanec (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes criteria 7 of WP:NMUSIC (sas one of the most prominent representatives of a musical style in his city (musical style is soca). This is confirmed here in The Jamaica Observer which is a national newspaper reliable source that was already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference here from a national newspaper, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Atlantic306. CleanAmbassy (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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