< 22 September	24 September >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Islamabad Model Colleges[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I stumbled on this in a backlog some months ago and tried to clean it up but ended up stubbing it as I could find no English language sources with which to write an article. I hate further worsening our coverage of non English-speaking areas and feel like these are probably notable, but unless we can find some help with non-English sources from someone who can read the language, there's nothing to establish notability. I initially thought Model was a brand, but it appears these are more just a kind of non public schools with nothing to tie them together. StarM 00:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice of recreating it should sources emerge. With what we have access to now if fails WP:GNG and WP:VERIFY. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Riphah International University. Consensus is that there is no reason for this to be a seperate article (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riphah College of Veterinary Sciences[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Riphah International University with which it is associated. .--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Riphah International University. No need for a separate article. -- Whiteguru (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Iheme[edit]

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

A simple check of the references, and I have not checked all, just a random and substantial sample, shows a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources which is about the lady. She seems to be a fine perosn doing well in her career, but is WP:ROTM Fiddle Faddle 21:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 21:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 21:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Being well-documented in the twenty-first century, when anyone can be written about, proves something, but it doesn't prove much. Not every businesswoman is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — When half the Sources are self published it is indicative of the non notability of someone or something. Celestina007 (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete all the pages I contributed on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbas Kwarbai (talk • contribs)
Keep: I went through all the references, and yes, some are primary, some are useless, but this lady is making a contribution and is a rising star in Nigeria, and deliberately being an inspiration for other young people. The page creator has been in a lot of trouble and likely hasn't taken the time to learn the ropes. He is currently being pressed over COI and paid editing. While it is a simple question, I can see how this might inspire some fear. I say accept that this Dentist from Nigeria has notability in an environment where notability might not even be understood by the natives. --Whiteguru (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An extraction from your comment above says this lady is making a contribution and is a rising star in Nigeria, from that angle alone I’d say per WP:NOTJUSTYET the article cannot be retained as weren’t a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Celestina007 (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will give them the benefit of the doubt and see if it's a case of a notable person with a badly written article or if the subject simply fails WP:NBLP.GDX420 (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misión extravagante[edit]

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

Non notable film. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to help it pass WP:NFILM. Found several film database sites, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an IMdB mirror. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reviews available, no significant coverage on the film; it exists but there's no evidence of anything further Spiderone 09:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, leaning towards keep. BD2412 T 00:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Dwyer[edit]

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

Subject of article is an actor that fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR and generally lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources, hence a GNG & WP:ENT fail also. A before search shows hits in unreliable sources that appear to be self published. Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my opinion, WP:NACTOR is the wrong criteria to look at Dwyer under. She is more notable for her writing and for her work as a theatre practicioner (associate artistic directorships, artistic director, directing). Therefore I suggest WP:CREATIVE. I'll specifically point to crit. 3 for creating Calpurnia, which has multpile independant reviews, and writing The D Cut. Here are 3 Calpurnia reviews (because multiple means 2 or more) as proof: Globe and Mail, NOW Toronto, and Toronto Star. In terms of meeting GNG, at the very least there's this Winnipeg Free Press article. I know list-based articles don't always count in terms of sigcov, but CBC named her one of "31 Black Canadian female playwrights you need to know". In my opinion, she pretty easily meets an SNG (WP:CREATIVE), so I think it's a keeper. Samsmachado (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — @Samsmachado, first off thanks for creating the article. Now, let’s get to analysis @Globe and Mail required me to login before reading. The Winnipeg Free Press article appears to be a legit reliable one which actually does justice to subject of your article but I am afraid one source isn’t good enough for WP:GNG. The 31-black canadian female playwrights you need to know is a list article & list articles do next to nothing in satisfying WP:GNG as they are mere listings that don’t discuss their subjects(names listed) with significant coverage. Overall you have just one decent source discussing subject of your article. In your defense you have pointed to three reviews of their work & claimed they satisfy no 3 of creative, Now if 3 reviews of a subject’s work supersedes WP:GNG is why I have opened this AFD, so the community can decide this for themselves. My job here is done I won’t be badgering you or anyone as this is indeed one of those cases in which I’m curious to see the outcome. I should also state that SNG’s are not necessarily > WP:GNG especially in a scenario as this where only 1 out 4 criterion’s are barely met. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was aiming to prove meeting WP:CREATIVE, an SNG, not GNG. Sorry for any confusion. Criteria 3 of WP:CREATIVE: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. I provided 3 (ie. multiple) independant reviews of a significant work created (written and directed) by Dwyer. The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, and NOW Toronto are all legit reviews. This explicitly meets WP:CREATIVE criteria 3. If you think that meeting an SNG such as WP:CREATIVE is insignificant reasoning for keeping an article, that is your prerogative, but please state that explicitly for the sake of clarity. Samsmachado (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsmachado, I was expanding on my rationale in the same time you were replying so there’s a bit of Ec there, It’s basically what you were asking me to do. I’m also curious about this one. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I appreciate that you're curious as to the outcome and I really don't mean to badger you here. I'm mostly expanding on things I left out of my original vote that I think are relevant in light of your comments. I think it's a little unfair to characterize the whole argument for keeping as barely meeting 1 of 4 SNG criterion. I was just clearly outlining those reviews as one example of how she meets CREATIVE3. Every other play she has directed is cited with a review in the WP article, many of those plays have multiple independant reviews. So there are plenty of cases of meeting CREAT3. I would argue that the article also meets crit. 4, part c of WP:CREATIVE and crit. 1 of WP:ANYBIO via Dwyer's Dora Awards for the collectively created children's play One Thing Leads to Another. But I feel that the awards route is a weaker argument because the awards recognize Dwyer's significant contributions as part of a collective rather than as an individual. (There is potentially a (albeit weak) case for meeting WP:ENT (even though I said it wasn't necessarily the appropriate criteria) via her theatre credits. But, that's weak.) Samsmachado (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samsmachado, my point of view is for we to consider someone notable WP:GNG has to be fulfilled. Surely certain SNG’s supersede GNG & a grand example would be WP:PROF as most academics are reserved & aren’t always in the spotlight, but the subject of your article is an actor & writer and more often than not always in the spotlight, so I’m not sure why locating reliable sources directly discussing her is becoming a daunting task. Like I said certain SNG’s like NPROF supersede GNG but as for CREATIVE? I honestly don’t think so, especially when only one out of four criterion from CREATIVE is met I’m sorry I’m repeating that. I think at this juncture we should both go to rest now. It’s 1:09am in my country & I have to be up by 4:00am for work. Celestina007 (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Celestina007 I'm not sure why you pointed out that the Globe and Mail article requires registration. That requirement is entirely immaterial to the task at hand here - even if its an entirely offline source you should AGF that it is relevant. In any case, I've added Internet Archive links to both of the Globe and Mail articles so readers so inclined can read them without registration. Personally I think there is plenty of coverage of this playwright to support notability, and my Google searches picked up even more stuff that could be added, so I vote keep. --Krelnik (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C. S. Prem[edit]

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

None of the sources are about him except for the YouTube interview. This editor has not won any awards or garnered fame yet. Fails WP:Creative professionals. Created by a blocked user. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete note even remotely close to significant enough sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above Spiderone 12:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ~ Amkgp 💬 14:29, 1 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. Izno (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Velukutty[edit]

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

No sources exist for this editor. There is an article on the entertainment site Scoopwhoop about his short film Koothu, but there are no sources about him. This person is yet to become notable (such as gaining awards for feature films). Created by a blocked and paid user. Also, none of the information found in the article is present in any of the sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vibha Natarajan[edit]

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

This actress has played the lead role in three films. I cound't find any coverage for Aata (2011), the first film she acted in. In two films, she has played comedienne role as shown by this source: [1]. The sources that cover her in depth are not reliable (i.e. Behindwoods, Webdunia, Times of India video interview). Since she has played the lead in only two notable films, this is a case of WP:Too soon until her film Pesu releases. Created by a paid/blocked user. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Stein[edit]

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

A filmmaker who has directed quite a few non-notable films, his most successful film would have been in the Tribeca Film Festival, but it isn't. No coverage that's indicative of WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE either in the article or on a WP:BEFORE search. Having a film or two what was at a few film festivals and got some views on youtube doesn't a notable filmmaker make. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 Tribeca Film Festival published its selection, distributed laurels, and gave awards. The festival happened untraditionally given the coronavirus outbreak. Updated article to reflect. Dzz134435 ^Talk _Work 22:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:DIRECTOR. Seems WP:TOOSOON for him. KidAd talk 23:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete for the toosoon reason given. Lausapwow (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Look: There's just not enough. WP:TOOSOON. EverybodyEdits (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Mahmud Naim[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Subject has one newspaper mention [2] but it's not significant coverage, just a short announcement of him having won a competition. Other sources are listings in various minor competitions, and then what appears to be a shortlist for an open sub-category of the Sony World Photography Awards. In any case, these awards do not make up for the lack of WP:SIGCOV. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree your points you mentioned about that article. Also I respect the users here. But as I get heard about that person, it is really difficult for me to collect all the sources within couple of days. It will take time to cite more references on that person. Beside he got plenty of image coverage on him what I noticed in the country. Yes, familiar in photography fraternity. I will suggest to keep the article. Regards KBM Nikhil (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In advance few universities in Bangladesh like, University of Dhaka, North South University invited him many times as a guest mentor on Photography Techniques during the year of 2016-2017. KBM Nikhil (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now I too think this article must be deleted. I will later put more reliable sources about this person when I will get. I will wait for more coverage about this person to be notable. KBM Nikhil (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Now United. Applies to all songs below, but since they were not properly tagged editors will have to do this manually and it can be reverted if contested. Sandstein 13:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What Are We Waiting For[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. An editor is very keen on creating articles for every song by this teen pop group, even though none of them appear to have charted anywhere in the world, and none of them appear to be notable. The editor has reverted all attempts to redirect the articles to the group's page or their discography, so I am bringing this one to AfD as a test case to see if other editors think the articles are notable – all of them follow this article's format of a line or two about where the video was filmed (not evidence of notability), and another line or two about the TV shows where the song was performed as promotion, and that's it. Of the sources in the article, the first Billboard article and the UOL article don't mention the song at all, the second Billboard source is literally a passing mention of the release of the video, the Febreteen source is a Brazilian teen magazine which isn't an RS and only exists as a promotional link to "watch the video below", and the Pagina Zero source is just a title with no content whatsoever. I can't find any reliable sources talking about this song. The only part of WP:NMUSIC that could possibly be met here is criterion 5 of WP:NALBUM, as the group performed the song on a TV show to promote it, but as that criterion suggests, if all that can be said about the song is "it was performed on The Late Late Show with James Corden" then it would be better to note this in one sentence in the group's article, not devote a separate article to it. Richard3120 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: another SPA editor has added two links to a Swedish TV channel's website – the first link doesn't mention the song at all, the second only includes its name in a listing of the program's schedule. They also added three links to the group performing at the 2019 Champions League final, one of which doesn't mention the group at all, and the other two only mention their name in passing and none of their songs. Richard3120 (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All (changed from Delete to Delete All due to below): I left the auhtor a message a while ago [3] about all the stubs they were creating that do not meet GNG or NSONG, someone else also left a message in this regard, but nothing has changed. Most of these stubs need to be deleted and redirected. // Timothy :: talk 00:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG (I was the other editor who left a message on the creator's talk page). --John B123 (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, I compiled a list of all the articles the blocked user created that does not show any signs of notability, all the songs show no indication of charting anywhere or even a nomination for any major awards. All the sources are just coverage from Portuguese blog sites and do not adequately constitute significant coverage. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 00:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate: Barely found any independent coverage about the song. However, the title is common and a number of songs carry that name. Hence, disambiguating it is the way to go. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common? It seems that this is the only Wikipedia article to have this song name. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nkon21, there's a song with the same name from Amiina, but it's redirected to one of its albums. That said, neither of those songs are notable. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the songs in the list compiled by Nkon21 above. Or, if anyone is particularly concerned about alternatives to deletion, Redirect all to Now United. The nominator is correct about the originally-nominated song and his reasoning applies to all the others to varying degrees. Some of the songs made the charts in scattered countries but for purposes of brevity this can be mentioned at the group's page. All of the articles are overwhelmingly fancruft (or "managercruft"), as it takes a certain mindset to assume that every single one the group's songs deserve separate promotional articles, and note the so-called "Controversies" in several of them, which are just the imagined complaints of a few TV viewers supposedly outraged about their language being excluded. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per a recommendation below, the better redirect target is Now United discography, but I still recommend deleting everything. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Now United: As much as my disambiguate stands in one of the articles, redirecting them to the target article is still the way to go. I barely found any independent coverage about them. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the pages are not deleted and instead redirected, then I think a better target would be Now United discography. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Even the mentions of each song in Now United don't help their cause. However, because none of the other articles except one have been tagged for AFD, bold redirects will have to suffice. Another option is to tag them and let this play out for another 7 days. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 09:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Airport of Tomorrow[edit]

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

The article does not meet notability. I don't believe a merge is appropriate, if every proposed concept Disney has was merged the target articles would be a mess. The title of the article is very generic, so I don't believe a redirect is appropriate. // Timothy :: talk 19:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This would be better material for a Wikis on Fandom related to Disney and amusement parks. Pahiy (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sole source does not provide any substantive detail worth adding to the brief mention that exists at EPCOT (concept)#Transportation. I also am averse to a redirect, as the phrase "airport of tomorrow" has also been used to discuss general changes in airport design, etc. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: while the mouselets article is a fascinating account of that which never was, this is a non-existent and non-notable Disney project that never got off the ground. Merging is not appropriate, here. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:I am in favor of deletion of my own page. I was not able to find enough info to say anything more than a few sentences, this was my first crack at writing a new Wikipedia page, and I understand there was not enough info here. Thank you to everybody. I also apologized as I am not super familair with the Wikipedia stlye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bttf72 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Bttf72, Absolutely no apologies needed, everyone that writes articles has some deleted, especially at first. Please don't be discouraged and do continue to try and write more. Best wishes from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 03:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huang's law[edit]

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

Not seeing enough depth of sourcing or coverage to justify an article. Plus the basic error in the 2nd paragraph. According to the first para, Moore's law would predict a 32-fold increase, not 10-fold. Edwardx (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood. The Moore's law says "doubles every two years", not "doubles every year". The topic of this article is very important and even if the article was removed, the concept should be preserved either on the Moore's law page, or on some page related to Huang or Nvidia. The GPU design industry is much more secretive and mysterious and doesn't get as much attention and coverage as the topics related to CPUs, so even this tiny bit of knowledge is valuable. But this law also explains why so little is known about GPUs - the progress is just happening too fast to even track it. 37.225.41.14 (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These simple errors can be fixed with edits, deletion is not a solution. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 21:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another neologism written about far too soon. One reference is a not-in-depth primary source which throws in "Huang's law" for the sake of a clickbait headline (and headlines are not to be trusted), following it up with an admission that nobody actually called the idea "Huang's law" yet. The other two sources are newsblogs from this past week. Nothing here establishes notability. The best source that further searching could find is another opinion column saying the idea doesn't make sense. Wikipedia is not for trying to make fetch happen. XOR'easter (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum The article has been expanded since I !voted, but I don't think WP:HEY applies. Nothing in the expansion indicates to me that the claim has been around long enough to have been evaluated seriously (beyond the level of industry hype and omnipresent tech churnalism). XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've completely missed in your arguments the fact that ExtremeTech is one of the most important outlets that discusses the hardware architectures of GPUs. On Wikipedia, the term Computational power links to the article about Moore's law, which revolves around transistor counts, rather than computational power of hardware. The graphs in the Moore's law article that depict the progress of computational hardware are outdated and incomplete. To make an up to date graph for articles about Moore's law and Accelerating change, it would be necessary to include smartphone CPUs and GPUs, the tiniest of microcontrollers, modern GPGPU hardware from Nvidia and AMD, the Intel Xeon Phi, the AMD Threadripper, and various other accelerators like for example the ones used for AI acceleration. This graph would have to use a logarithmic scale, on which it would be then possible to draw a grid of slopes that would show the Moore's law growth rate, which would allow to verify Moore's predictions. I wasn't able to find a thorough examination of these trends or any relevant knowledge about the recent advances in those areas anywhere on Wikipedia. That's why i think that the idea discussed in this article is relevant - it's simply missing from Wikipedia. I think that your argument that this article is trying to make fetch happen is completely on point - naming a whole article after just two news pieces doesn't make much sense. The term "Huang's law" should only be mentioned as an anecdote, rather than be the sole reason for the articles existence at this point. The TOPS500 website includes data about adoption of Nvidia hardware in datacenters, and there is a dataset on a website related to progress of AI which includes the computational power of GPUs from the last two decades. I am not sure if there are other datasets like this available for other types of hardware like smartphone chipsets, but either way making a complete graph would likely take at least a day. The TOPS500 statistics show how important Nvidia has become in the supercomputer market, and these statistics alone aren't included in the articles about supercomputers or GPGPU. Joel Hruska hasn't objected the observation that the progress of GPU hardware hasn't been limited by Moore's law in the same way that it has affected the CPU market. Joel merely says that "Huang's law" never existed in the first place, that this term came out of nowhere, to object the recent articles that appeared in the less technologically fluent news outlets. Many of the Joel's observations would be very important in an article that would discuss this topic. Joel seems to be trying to say that "Huang's law" is not predictive of further progress of GPU hardware, and that it is subject to the trend of diminishing returns and as such, it has no power to overcome the limit of Moore's law. 37.225.41.14 (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, Danny Devito! I love your work! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not understand the nomination. It is easy to find RS. Wall Street Journal here, HotHardware here, Fox 24 News here, Yahoo News here and a naysayer Extreme Tech here. As a gentle reminder WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP and WP:BEFORE Lightburst (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Fr24News item is just a mirror of the WSJ item, which is the newsblog post where the writer says, "I call it Huang's law". Proposing a neologism is not evidence that the neologism has been adopted. The HotHardware item is churnalism, repeating the claims from the WSJ newsblog post without offering independent analysis. XOR'easter (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Jensen Huang for now with no prejudice against re-creation should it build sustained notability later on. I agree with the argument that it's neologism. Wikipedia isn't really a place to create new article as if creating news stories. Even a re-direct isn't appropriate, because we don't know if calling his observations "Huang's law" is more than just a brief press fad. Graywalls (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
1. Perry, Tekla S. (May 2018). "Move Over, Moore's Law: Make Way for Huang's Law". IEEE Spectrum. IEEE. Retrieved September 24, 2020. Graphics processors are on a supercharged development path that eclipses Moore's Law. ... GPUs are also advancing more quickly than CPUs because they rely upon a parallel architecture, Jesse Clayton, an Nvidia senior manager, pointed out in another session."
2. Mims, Christopher (September 19, 2020). "Huang's Law Is the New Moore's Law, and Explains Why Nvidia Wants Arm". Wall Street Journal – via www.wsj.com.(subscription required) reprinted in "Huang's Law is New Moore's Law and explains why Nvidia wants an arm". Fox 24 News. September 29, 2020.
3. Hayes, Caroline (October 11, 2018). "Jensen Huang: Moore's law is dead – long live AI". Electronics Weekly. Metropolis International. Retrieved September 24, 2020. ... there are two dynamics controlling the computing industry today – the end of Moore's law and software that can write itself, artificial intelligence, or AI. ... We can study where bottlenecks are. New software systems make the application go faster, not just the chip.
4. Hruska, Joel (September 22, 2020). "There's No Such Thing as 'Huang's Law,' Despite Nvidia's AI Lead". Extreme Tech.

These settle the issue. We should include this pro and contrary views, but should not purge the article from Wikipedia. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP and WP:BEFORE. Exceeds WP:GNG. Indeed, not now the article it was when it was nominated for deletion, so WP:HEY applies. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Electronics Weekly story from 2018 does not use the term "Huang's law". XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WSJ and Spectrum sources adequatly demonstrate that this has gone beyond nelogism. ~Kvng (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- How does a source proposing a neologism demonstrate that it has gone beyond neologism? I am legitimately confused by how people are taking the WSJ item. It's literally a guy writing I call it Huang's Law. XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The timing of this AfD coincides with the publication of "There’s No Such Thing as ‘Huang’s Law,’" in ExtremeTech in which the journalist Joel Hruska says it is "too soon" to determine the existence of the law. However.. this is one journalist whose job it is to create stories, often through controversy as a sort of devil's advocate. But it passes Notability, and the concept is evolving - it has a critic, but so did Moore's Law. The existence of a critic is not reason to delete. Even if it is discredited, it is now part of the history of technology and would need a place somewhere on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 15:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is sufficiently covered to comply with Neologism, Wikipedia not a dictionary. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a critic is not a reason to delete, but the existence of only one critic is a reason to think that the whole idea is too recent to have been evaluated critically. XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep -Really?? Detailed coverage in IEEE Spectrum is not good enough to establish notability? Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call the IEEE Spectrum story "detailed". It's a few paragraphs, summarizing a keynote speech without soliciting opinions from other experts or generally doing anything that serious science journalism would. It's not even reporting on a fully-formed idea (Huang was throwing a variety of numbers out there; it seems he's still working out the exact multiple he's talking about). XOR'easter (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The entire article was about this. That it is not as detailed as you would have liked is irrelevant. IEEE is super reliable and reputable, it devoted an entire article to this, it knocks WP:GNG out of the park. Trying to reconnect (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing notability for a topic can be realized by publishing a book. In the easiest case, it would be an ebook sold in the Amazon kindle store. In the more advanced attempt, the book is available in a printed version and is used for teaching purposes in a university course. The reason why an encyclopedia is dependent from book publication is because of an information hierarchy. Primary sources are aggregated into text books, and text books are aggregated into encyclopedic databases. Bypassing the information layers is producing a larger complexity. For example, if the referenced article in the “Wall street journal” comes to the conclusion that “Huang's law” is different from previous articles, then the Wikipedia article has to be adapted quickly. This will result into a rolling release encyclopedic article which is maintained by activists on a daily basis.--ManuelRodriguez (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an ongoing discussion about inclusion of material, sourcing and reliability of sources here. I note that so interested editors can comment (if they choose) in the appropriate spot. I don't think the AFD should be cluttered with discussion about that, since it is immaterial to this effort. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main sources bolstering this are not reliable. One of which starts out by describing Moore's law as a "prediction" rather than an empirical observation (and later a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy). This per se renders the source unreliable. Another conflates the idea of transistor density (which is what Moore's law is actually about) with processor power (which is definitely isn't, and which is well-known). There's also a lot of overly credulous and hyped-up treatment of the concept rather than serious analysis of it. Maybe worst of all, that it's just not well-defined. "Huang's law claims that a synergy between hardware, software and artificial intelligence makes the new 'law' possible." The law claims something that makes the law possible? Huh? And there's still no clear statement of it. All this, at the very very least, adds up to a case of WP:TOOSOON. If this really turns into a better-defined thing that people really refer to on a large scale, then come back to this in 5 or 10 years. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't gauge WP:RS based on our own assessment of the accuracy of an individual article. WSJ and Spectrum are reliable sources. If we base an article on these sources and they turn out to be wrong, we'll fix the article but we won't delete it. WP:GNG and WP:42 trump WP:TOOSOON. ~Kvng (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can in fact. WSJ may be nominally reliable, but that doesn't mean every single piece it contains is. If we identify a major, glaring, fundamental error in an article there, then it does call its reliability into question. Determining reliability is editorial judgement that we do have a say in. As for as the Spectrum piece, as XOR also pointed out above, a deeper reading of it indicates that it's about his talk, and not about any actual law: "So Huang was throwing a variety of numbers out there; it seems he’s still working out the exact multiple he’s talking about." One specific benchmark measurement pointed out by one guy in one talk does not a law make. It's an ill-defined nebulous topic that cannot be written about in a cohesive way until and if it becomes more widely accepted and better specified. WP:GNG doesn't apply because there is no topic to apply it to. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a lot of sources about something that isn't a topic.. People play devil's advocate with the law to test the strength/predictive power. Oh wait, I said "prediction" because that is one thing laws can do for people similar to how the law of gravity provides predictive services for NASA, it's a common way people approach and use laws; but according to you because the source says "prediction" the entire source is invalid. C'mon your trying to discredit the sources, I get that, but is making mountains out of semantic and contextual molehills, it's not a reason to toss the source. -- GreenC 21:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In a little more detail, look at the WSJ source:
I call it Huang’s Law ... It describes how the silicon chips that power artificial intelligence more than double in performance every two years. While the increase can be attributed to both hardware and software, its steady progress makes it a unique enabler of everything from autonomous cars, trucks and ships to the face, voice and object recognition in our personal gadgets.
So we're writing an article on a "law" that someone attempted to coin 6 days ago. A "law" which is so vague that the current article can't even properly describe it. So yeah, the source is not reliable insofar as it attempts to coin a new "law" of computing. XOR's fetch analogy above was both hilarious and eerily apt. If Gordon Moore had made his famous observation in a keynote speech 6 days ago, and then some people wrote about it and called it "Moore's law", it would also be inappropriate for an article. And it would have even have had the advantage of being specific: "transistor density doubles every 18-24 months" (or whatever the exact time frame is). It wasn't using some vague notion of "performance" that Mims is; it was talking about transistor density. We wouldn't have been able to write about Moore's law for quite a few years at the very least...until we knew that people were continuing to use the term in the same way, and that people had written about it and studied it. This isn't a topic. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well defined and widely researched topic, normally referred to as Beyond Moore or More than Moore, and it can be directly linked from this phrase in the Moore's law article. It's about reversing the Wirth's law, and about how the the room can be found within the software and hardware design itself, instead than in materials science. It touches upon the topics of GPGPU, hardware acceleration, and software optimization. It's about learning to do better engineering, instead of throwing billions of dollars at another company to do the work for you. 37.225.41.14 (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

coin 6 days ago .. actually some years ago. The term with capital letters has been in usage since April and May 2018. The HotHardware piece claiming a 2020 origin is not surprising as etymology is often confusing, for journalists or Wikipedia and anyone, but that sort of error doesn't invalidate the entire HotHardware article as unreliable. -- GreenC 13:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC: If you're talking about the Spectrum piece, all it says is: "Huang, who is CEO of Nvidia, didn’t call it Huang’s Law; I’m guessing he’ll leave that to others.". That's the exact opposite of using it, and the piece was very clear to point out that Huang was being pretty vague with his claims, which also supports the fact that there's no topic here. Let me stress this point, because it's vital: there is no topic here. The ExtremeTech piece, contrary to trying to use it to support notability, goes out of its way to also explain why this is not some well-defined thing, like Moore's law is, and to criticize Mims for not knowing what the hell he's talking about. We can't write about a topic if there is no well-defined topic. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every source in the article use the term and consider it a topic. Who coined the term originally is beside the point only that it's in currency. It also doesn't matter if the Law is accurate or not, only that it is in currency. Wikipedia could have articles on real laws, fake laws and controversial laws. The question is the degree of coverage for notability purposes. -- GreenC 14:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it can't have an article on a "law" that doesn't even have a definition, because it was an attempted coinage by someone a week ago who didn't really know what he was talking about. If this sticks, and there's actually some nailing down of precisely what this is about, and people actually write about it seriously, then we can. But that takes years to get a proper perspective on. And until then...there is no topic. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came here today looking forward to learn about this concept sooo it is relevant enough and deserves its place in Wikipedia — User:Ejrrjs says What? 20:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and merge content into Jensen Huang, as another editor said. This is a neologism that seems to be borne out of Nvidia marketing/PR. I have not heard of this being widely or seriously referenced in academic publications. On the other hand, there has been some coverage of it in reputable sources, so its content merits a place in Wikipedia after all. If/when this gets widely referenced, we can split it out to its own page. This is a message from Mr. XYZ. 18:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. XYZ, not that it is critically relevant but do you have any evidence to back your claim that this comes from Nvidia marketing/PR? ~Kvng (talk) 15:22, 3 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 13:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matrubhaban School & College, Cuttack[edit]

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

A religious secondary school. I CSD'd this as G11 but it was contested. The article does not meet GNG or WP:ORG, and appears promotional in nature. Sources in the article and BEFORE showed only database style listings, sites that do not meet WP:IS. // Timothy :: talk 18:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 18:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 18:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: The problem with this article is confusion between the works of a sacred organisation and the foundation and functions of a school to benefit the society. It should be moved back to draft, and heavily edited to show the purpose, benefits and notability of the school, outside of the references of the sacred organisation. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sir, I am a beginner Wikipedia contributor. I did my best research for writing this school article. Basically, there are not so many articles available about this school on the internet. Only one article I found about this school from the (google book).

This school was established 1975 very old & well famous school in our city. Wikipedia like this type of content. Our Article is not promotional to any entity or organization nor this school supports any kind of religion. It is just based on the ideology of Sri Aurobindo & Mira Alfassa. This old school gives good education to the society. Like Integral education. Many students pass out from the school.

There is another school which is based on the same ideology which has a Wikipedia page  -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Aurobindo%27s_Rourkela_School

like the above-mentioned school, Matrubhaban School & college is also a Normal school. So, my humble request to not nominate/vote this article to be deleted. Also I am trying to improve my article. My hope u will approve my content.Rewrite Man (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rewrite Man (talk • contribs) 18:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Rewrite Man, I moved your comment down to the comments section, it was originally at the top of the nomination. I haven't altered the content of the comment in any way, just moved it to the proper place.

Regarding the nomination, please read WP:GNG and WP:NORG. These are notability guidelines and they determine what subjects are considered appropriate for articles. The existence of another article doesn't impact the discussion here (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but I did look at that article and did some research and it does not meet the guidelines above either. In the future you may wish to start your articles at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, when submitted they will be reviewed and the reviewer will let you know if the article meets notability or needs works. You can also ask questions at WP:TEAHOUSE. I hope this helps, please don't be discouraged, many articles are deleted. // Timothy :: talk 19:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current state of this article qualifies it for WP:TNT. Drafting wouldn't hurt either. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. However, if the initial contributor thinks that there's some coverage offline, they may add it (if not today) – then draftify is my second opinion. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Kay[edit]

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

Kay is not notable outside of having been a member of a band that has notability, but he does not have any notability on his own John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete He is featured in this book about Bill Haley here sadly the best coverage is in this blog. here. I spent some time because he is surely a notable musician based on the fact that he was a Comet. If anyone finds more ping me. Lightburst (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with enough sourcing. @Lightburst: I was also able to dig up [4] [5] [6] without looking at the archives. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the additional sources found in this discussion which show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States representatives at Miss World. Sandstein 14:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Texas World[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was soft deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Texas World due to no participation in May 2020. Was then restored by request; however the editor that requested it to be restored has not improved it (all five sources are still primary or non-RS ones) therefore bringing it to AfD again. Black Kite (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Of the five sources you're referring to only two of them are primary.^[1]^[2] The other three are actually secondary.^[3]^[4]^[5] I also added about 19 other secondary sources to the article in an effort to further improve it show that it can be in the article space. IZ041 (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IZ041: Yes, I meant to say "reliable" rather than primary. So basically, two are primary, two are to a beauty pageant fanpage that is now defunct, and the fifth is a YouTube beauty pageant vlog. In other words, there are still no reliable sources (I have modified the nomination statement). So, again, why should this be kept? Black Kite (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Black Kite: Like I mentioned at the end of my original comment I had added 19 other sources to the article in an effort to further improve it. IZ041 (talk) 1:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

References

^ "Miss World America Texas 2020 – Miss World America". Retrieved 2020-09-08.
^ "Miss World America - Texas".
^ "Miss World USA Pageant". Archived from the original on 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2014-12-19.
^ The American representatives to Miss World 1978-1994
^ "Miss Texas World 2015 Rachel White - Pageant LIVE". YouTube. June 4, 2015. Retrieved May 29, 2020.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth having one more round of this
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ redirect to United States representatives at Miss World. The added references are all to a relative thimbleful of local news coverage. The Victoria Advocate and the Paris News are cited four times each both the Del Rio News Herald and the Seguin Gazette-Enterprise are cited twice, making the assertion of "19 other sources" over-inflated. These are tiny purely local sources and their coverage counts for little significance. Sources demonstrate either significant coverage in non-reliable sources of reliable source coverage of little significance. Our basic standard remains unsatisfied. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC) !vote changed after finding suitable redirect target per WP:ATD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:03, 3 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. Izno (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K.K. Raghava[edit]

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

Reason Wikipranav26 (talk) 17:05, 23 September 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 September 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this is kept then it should move to Raghava KK as this appears to be how he is most often referred Spiderone 09:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Ross (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a political officeholder at the local level, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The highest level of office he's stated to have held is that of county assessor, which is not an "inherently" notable office that guarantees a Wikipedia article per se -- but the only claim to greater notability than the norm is that he was charged with (but ultimately acquitted of) a crime nowhere near serious or important enough to claim that he would be notable under WP:PERP. And as for the sourcing, five of the seven footnotes here are primary sources (content on the self-published websites of his own employers, press releases, all-candidate election information directories) that are not support for notability -- and the two that are WP:GNG-worthy media coverage aren't enough to make him notable all by themselves as every officeholder at the local level can always show at least two hits in the local media. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable politician and businessman who got in legal trouble but was eventually cleared. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom and Cullen. MB 05:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Microsoft Visual Studio#Debugger. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Visual Studio Debugger[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT, alike to other features of Microsoft Visual Studio which do not have their own articles Ed talk! 16:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ed talk! 16:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Microsoft Visual Studio : The main article covers it. The feature list here is not needed, so I don't think there is anything to merge. // Timothy :: talk 01:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Agreed, the debugger really does not merit an article of its own; the debugger is a runtime of VS itself. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Town, Missouri[edit]

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

GNIS code of U6, which indicates that it is a place without legal recognition, so it quite flatly fails WP:GNG. The State Historical Society calls it a trading point and a store, but as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tingley, Missouri shows, a description as a "trading point" isn't enough for notability. Google maps shows a gas station calling itself a "marina" and a few outbuildings at the site now. A bit down the road, there's a collection of houses and maybe a few trailers, but that's too far south from where the topos are showing Glen Town. I'm still waiting on a newspapers.com decision from WP:LIBRARY, but Google Books ain't brining up anything useful. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terry N Phipps[edit]

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

Single independent source, for an award issued by a non-notable company (contested PROD). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any reliable sources about the subject. The website which gave him the award is of doubtful notability and has been offline for two years. It seems to have been more of a blog than a source of critical journalism. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POET since the award can hardly be construed as "significant critical attention". Modussiccandi (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Drinking fountains in Philadelphia. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Trough at 315 S 9th St[edit]

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

Prod rationale was Non-notable horse ~~through~~ trough. It's old, but that's not enough for notability. A city-level register of historic places is not enough to pass WP:GEOFEAT. I'm struggling to find coverage for this particular site. This is just a table listing and almost suggests it doesn't have a name beyond "Horse trough". Another brief listing. It exists, it's old, and it has a bland name. That's about all that I can find about this, and it doesn't meet WP:GEOFEAT or WP:GNG.. Deprodded by Spinningspark stating that if Wilson Cary Swann or Philadelphia Fountain Society existed, it could be merged there. However, GEOFEAT is still not met, GNG is not met, and since neither of the merge targets exist at the moment, to AFD this goes. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Create a stub at Philadelphia Fountain Society and merge there. Both the society and its founder, Wilson Cary Swann, are notable. They are both discussed in this book and this one. I'm going to ask for a copy of the listing proposal for this at WP:RX. It might possibly have enough information to write a standalone article, but if not will at least provide a source to confirm that this fountain is one of Swann's society. SpinningSpark 09:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Collectively, the horse troughs installed by the Womens Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (WPSPCA) and others and designated as historical objects by Philadelphia are notable as evidenced by the coverage by WHYY: Curbside refreshment for man and beast, now added at the article. 24.151.56.107 (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to to Drinking fountains in Philadelphia per creation and arguments below. Nice work. 24.151.56.107 (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is minimal, and not all historical objects are notable. –dlthewave ☎ 17:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable fountain. Maybe a merge, but I don't know where. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How about rewriting this into an article about all the horse throughs installed by the Society that the anon mentions? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Caroline_Earle_White#Women's_Humane_Society. The fountain itself is not encyclopedic but its origins are. --Lockley (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I guess, after new article created, not checking.--Doncram (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was: "Keep", for now at least, unless or until it might be merged into a larger article that covers the topic better. It is apparently an officially designated local historic site (one of 5 horse troughs listed), and the article carries a photo and has other info, is apparently tangible evidence of historical events. Wikipedia is not required to have a separate article about each separate historic site which exists, because many might be better covered as items in a larger list whose article provides context. Discussion above has not clearly identified a merger target article. I don't think AFD process is suitable for forcing development of coverage about persons, societies, places mentioned above. There is substantial info here which should not be lost or made inaccessible/unlikely to be found by future editors. We should defer to future editors actually developing about these topics, who would be free to merge this article without an AFD being necessary. --Doncram (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOFEAT. What's next, a page for each individual old brick? KidAd talk 00:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Individual old bricks are not generally listed structures whereas this horse trough is. That makes a prima facie case for at least looking at it, and not tossing it out of hand. SpinningSpark 07:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not out of the question that an individual brick might be notable. Brick 90136 in the British Museum is discussed in this book and gets mentioned in quite a few others. SpinningSpark 16:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to vote Delete! in that AfD as well.

KidAd talk 16:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect' or Merge to Caroline_Earle_White#Women's_Humane_Society. I created a rudimentary stub at Philadelphia Fountain Society, Spinningspark, but I don't think this particular fountain was associated with the Fountain Society. Of course, if it was, merge there. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Drinking fountains in Philadelphia, new article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to.... somewhere. Hi @Doncram, Spinningspark, Piotrus, and Eddie891:, responding to your comments above, looks like we agree that this horse trough doesn't reach notability by itself, but there's a history here, touching on multiple people & social issues, worthy of encyclopedic coverage. I've expanded the article with some of that history -- please have a quick look. There were dozens of fountains and many remain. I'm hoping for your opinion about an appropriate new merge target which would cover all such fountains and their sponsors, called something like Philadelphia public drinking fountains, which I would gladly help build. Ideas welcome. --Lockley (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that’s a good idea— id help build the draft as well. I would happily merge the Philadelphia fountain society to that article because it seems to be permastubby as is. Let’s get something live at Draft:Philadelphia public drinking fountains and we can make it into an acceptable merge target? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are they drinking fountains or just … fountains? Be a bit difficult to drink from the one on the cover of [7], surely … AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this article is specifically about fountains & horse troughs meant for public consumption, not every fountain in Philly. --Lockley (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I bet I could drink out of that if I tried :P -- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to work on a draft, Lockley. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good solution. Redirect there after it is mainspaced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A nice, simple, vernacular historic artifact. Can't you go tear down a CSA statue or something? Carptrash (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The entry in the register is adequate to establish this as a notable historic feature. Whether it might be consolidated into a more general article about the fountains or the district or the parties involved is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our policies WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Note that policies trump guidelines. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Davidson: - The first part of your statement is rather problematic. The entry in the register does not establish notability. WP:GEOFEAT has the treshhold of national register, although in practice, it seems like this gets expanded for most state-level sites in the US. This fountain is on a local register, which falls several rungs below the GEOFEAT standard. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~Caroline_Earle_White#Women's_Humane_Society or Philadelphia Fountain Society~~ Drinking fountains in Philadelphia. Content in article is largely about the societies. The individual trough is not notable, rather the history of concern for horses and troughs in the city more generally. City-level historical registers do not bestow or establish automatic notability. Reywas92^Talk 20:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Drinking fountains in Philadelphia, newly created article as a result of this AfD. --Lockley (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or, basically, redirect) to Drinking fountains in Philadelphia per Eddie and Lockley. We've basically already merged it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram, Spinningspark, Piotrus, and Reywas92:, courtesy ping as you all suggested merging somewhere. The newly created Drinking fountains in Philadelphia article may be the best merge target now, though it (obviously didn't exist when the AFD began). Thoughts? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good to me. SpinningSpark 12:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Drinking fountains in Philadelphia. Good solution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Drinking fountains in Philadelphia: per the above // Timothy :: talk 19:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by others. This is an appropriate outcome for something that is NN by itself. By the way, a charity for providing horse troughs in the city of London still exists, but it now provides other water-related benefits, such as boreholes for villages in Africa. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CloudApp[edit]

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

Routine product, with routine pr and notices, but no significant discussions I could identify. The version in the esWPis almost identical. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, it seems like the majority of sources are either routine coverage (about features, funding, etc) or are additions to lists of other apps, where CloudApp is just another out of 5, 10, or 25 other products. If there was a company article, maybe there could be a sentence or so mention, but it doesn't seem like it should have its own article per WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:PRODUCT right now. - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable product Graywalls (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple qualifying sources not cited in the article. I added them in a comment on the bottom of the article. I think it should be moved to promising draft status. Brad Thomas Hanks (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first and fourth source you added do seem more significant. (I'm skipping over the other sources, because one's a slideshow of various apps and the others seem like routine coverage/software updates). But I'm not sure about their independence from the subject or significance, because one mentions affiliate links and the other is based around (routine?) coverage of a new software version + quotes from the CEO, so I find them a bit questionable. The best source in the article is [8], but I'm still not sure if one strong source plus the two above is enough or not. If some editors can weigh in - are these sources enough to show notability? - Whisperjanes (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmersbach[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Refs are mix of blogs and press releases. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 19:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These [9] [10] are not press releases, they are full write-ups in an independent newspaper (Nürnberger Nachrichten). Multiple winner of a statewide ministerial prize does carry some weight. Quite some overlap of other material with the multiply embattled Hemmersbach Rhino Force, but I don't think WP:NOTINHERITED applies (notability is not just based on the rhino thing). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is another full-write ups from indepedant, reputable newspaper [11]. BR is Bavaria's public broadcasting service with 8 million listeners each day and did a dedicated interview on Hemmersbach's CEO, Ralph Koczwara [12]. Admittedly, the rhino story was one focus but equally so was Hemmersbach. I did include some blogs and press releases which I am happy to remove if wished by Wiki editors? Even if these articles were removed there would be no grounds for WP:ORGIND and [[WP:CORPDEPTH] due to variation of independent sources (ZDF, Nordbayern, South China Morning Post, BR, FairPlanet, Nurnberger Nachricthen etc). - MichaelDubley (talk) )02:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first two post are write-ups. Where is the clarification for the first post. If it was notable, where is the additional write-ups in other established sources. The second one is PR with the owner smiling and telling folk about how he grew up, took his company from 20 people to the size it is now. Classic PR, as a company originating story. You see it all the time. It well known advertising pattern. Both of them look like classic PR. All the photographs from Rhino force are all copyright Hemmersbach, indicating PR. If it genuine they would photographer doing the work. More PR. The third references [13] states its a sponsored article in the lede. Also a press-release. We will go through the references. I'll go through the references one by one. scope_creep^Talk 11:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Scope Creep, please allow me to answer your comment here. I, unfortunately, don't understand 'Where is the clarification for the first post.'. If you could kindly explain the post you mean I would be happy to try answer that for you? In regard to the additional write-ups you mention, I would classify the six distinct news organizations as this and they are as follows ZDF, Nordbayern, South China Morning Post, BR, FairPlanet, Nurnberger Nachricthen. If there is a hard rule for how many are required for a wiki-article then please direct me to it and I would be happy to make appropriate edits. The BR interview [14] is not a press release but an interview with an established journalist from a reputable radio organization. You are correct the line of questioning regards the companies originating story but as Hemmersbach was invited on the show it is not a press release. The show must be sponsored however not by Hemmersbach or an affiliated organization. You are correct the photos from the Domestic German newspapers (Nürnberger Nachrichten) and NordBayern are supplied by Rhino Force. It is expensive for photographers from a domestic newspaper to send a photographer to Africa and I guess it was a financial decision to use Rhino Force's photos. You can see the photos taken in Nuremberg are by the two domestic German newspaper photographers and not taken by Hemmersbach or Rhino Force [15]. The International journalism organizations used their own photographers, please see the links [16][17][18][19] but I digress as the content that uses Rhino Force as copyright pertains to the Rhino Force wiki page and not this one. For sure if you have any other questions let me know here or on my talk page and I would be happy to discuss so the article is in-line with how you and the editors think is appropriate. Many thanks! - MichaelDubley (talk) )01:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see your last article Rhino Force was deleted. Ive also noticed that your Anti-poaching article had a big section of Hemmersbach, which has now been removed. A subject like Anti-poaching is academic not a corporate article and to link it that way is WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. It is also highly WP:PROMO and WP:PUFF. scope_creep^Talk 23:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scope creep:, after reading your links to wiki rules I agree your edits to Anti-poaching make sense. Thank you for your advice! Perhaps you have advice for the Hemmersbach article? It's clear I do not know the wiki world well so I'd appreciate any advice you have time to give. The dream would be to have an article you are satisfied fits wiki rules, would you like me to remove the blog posts? - MichaelDubley (talk) )01:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nürnberger Nachrichten is an esteemed and independent German newspaper, and does seem unrelated to the company in question; as such I do not think that WP:ORGIND applies. I also do not see any blogs cited as sources. However, I can somewhat relate to the sentiment that some parts of the article look somewhat PR'ish - but not to the degree that it would fail WP:PROMO. ParanoidAndroid83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:SPA editor, who has made no effective contribution to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 10:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, MichaelDubley is complete missing the point of WP:ORGIND by saying that the reference passes because the newspaper "is an esteemed and independent German newspaper". ORGIND is about whether the content of the article meets requirements, not about whether there are any corporate ties between the topic company and the publisher. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point @HighKing: and so obvious that it is intrinsic but still needs to be stated. I'll keep it in mind. scope_creep^Talk 21:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi @Elmidae: Do you think the article is genuinely notable? scope_creep^Talk 15:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say so. Not massively, but the indicated newspaper coverage is genuine, not promo features; and as I said, I think winning those prizes carries some weight. I have certainly seen other corporate articles pass with this kind coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are not notable. They are awards for business growth. Even the fastest growing company as a criteria, is super tenuous at best, and mostly generic in nature. It is everywhere. scope_creep^Talk 23:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi @Scope creep:, I saw you made changes to the article. I like two of the changes you made to remove the youtube video, linkedin article and blog post. Thanks for that! I saw you also removed the section on the award that Elmidae thought added weight to the articles worth. I would ask you to please keep this section so it is acknowledged when the admin reviews the page for deletion. Since yourself and Elmidae + myself are in a disagreement over whether the award section is notable I think we should leave it for the admin to decide. - MichaelDubley (talk) )08:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on that. Mentioning this type of award is pretty standard in company articles; and as you should know notability guidelines per se don't apply to material in articles, only to the article subject as a whole. I have reinserted the paragraph. This is a point that is separate from the overall assessment we are trying to reach here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: would benefit from some more input from uninvolved users
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference mentioned in the article or at this AfD meets the criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP. We require multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. What we have are a series of puff pieces and PR which fail the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I went through the citations I began to wonder if this was an IT company or a social/environmental activist organization. Nice that they are good corporate citizens but none of that explains why this company meets WP:SIRS. In picking just two the South China Morning Post citation is paid placement where the end of the article carries the disclaimer, “views and opinions expressed are those of the sponsor..”. The IHK Nürnberg für English language site doesn’t return anything about them the company name is ran through a search. Page creating editor may be a single-purpose account as there are few contributions that are unrelated to this article. Blue Riband► 04:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having read the above discussion and the sources for the article, I think it should be deleted. The sources, in spite of being mainly in reliable publications, are too complimentary of the company to demonstrate clear-cut independent content. This is why I think the company is a WP:ORGCRITE/WP:COMPANY fail. Their mention in an FT list is good but not significant coverage. Overall, this has the look of a really good PR drive. I would change my mind if several pieces of disinterested coverage in secondary sources were to surface. With regard to MichaelDubley, his contributions list does nothing to assuage concerns that the account is a WP:SPA. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:41, 1 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. Been open for over a month now, three relists and no additional input since 27 August. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fyodor Gavrilov[edit]

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

Apparent WP:NARTIST fail. I cannot find anything about this painter, and there is no equivalent in the Russian Wikipedia. I don't know how to back-transliterate this name into Cyrillic, so perhaps those who do can find something. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate gives the Cyrillic equivalent as Федор Гаврилов, which appears to have some hits, but I am not in a position to evaluate them. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, that is correct. The Russian disambig Гаврилов, Фёдор only lists two other people. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of this artists, and Wikidata links to a europeana entry that doesn't exist, beut has his name as Fedor. The Kalinin Regional Picture Gallery is probably the Tver Regional Picture Gallery https://gallery.tverreg.ru/ (Tver used to be called Kalinin) I searched their catalog but came up with nothing. I suspect that Nikita Kozhin is Никита Иванович Кожин, but not ru:Кожин, Александр Иванович, also know as Nikita, apparently. Still, I came up empty. Maybe the creator User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao knows more? Vexations (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations:, @AleatoryPonderings: this source contains an entry for him, stating pretty much what's in the Wikipedia article; that there's a portrait by him in the Tver gallery. A little more searching last night found a couple of other dictionaries with similar entries (I didn't make note of their names - I'll try to find more links later). I doubt very much there will be more to say about him, which then begs the question of whether or not he's worth writing about in the first place. I think he is, largely because of the fact that we know his name at all - how many Russian painters of the 18th century, working outside the main urban centers, can we say that about? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the text you cite is translated by Google as "GAVRILOV, Fyodor (2nd half of the 18th century) - painter. A portrait of his work is available in Tver Regional Art Gallery." (I don't speak Russian, so I depend on machine translations) That's not quite what the article says, and I find it a bit odd that the Tver Gallery itself has a lot of work online by Russian painters of the 18th century, working outside the main urban centers, but not this artist? I'm OK with keeping the entry, but only if we can verify that there is indeed such a painting, and where he worked. You seems t assume he worked outside the main urban centers, but we don't really know that, do we? To answer your question: I can find several: Grigory Ostrovsky and Vasily Tropinin for example. Vexations (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: The painting exists. It is illustrated in the book cited in the article, which was published in 1976 (we have an article about the exhibition curator, Savva Yamshchikov.) Why this particular painting was not digitized, I do not know...I find, though, that oftentimes smaller regional museums, both in the US and abroad, don't bother digitizing much more than the highlights of the collection. (Something which has frustrated my research many a time over the years.) I will try and scan it tonight, but can't guarantee a good copy. I'll update and smooth out the article tonight - I suspect part of the problem is that it's based on an outdated (i.e. Soviet) source. As to the point about the other two artists - I actually created Grigory Ostrovsky using the same source. :-) (He is particularly interesting to me because of the fact that 17 of his works were found at once, in one location.) And Tropinin is something of a special case, in that while he did live outside of the urban centers for much of his life, he was educated in Saint Petersburg, he wasn't an itinerant, and he ultimately lived in Moscow. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was speedy delete. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Altube[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable footballer without an appearance in a fully professional league.. Speedy deletion was removed by another editor. Kante4 (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete as per g4. It was not a legitimate removal. Praxidicae (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL, and SALT. Giant Snowman 17:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - no improvement on previous article Spiderone 17:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned by the nominator, the subject has not participated in a professional league, so they do not qualify for WP:NFOOTBALL. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSBASIC either. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 18:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m confused. It says he plays for Real Madrid. Though he is demonstrably an un-notable footballer, is that not one of the biggest teams in the league? Trillfendi (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi, Statistically speaking they are indeed the most successful team in Europe, However the SNG for footballers/sports people do not supersede WP:GNG, this means if they do not satisfy WP:GNG they aren’t notable. Plus a subject of an article is primarily notable by its own merit & not by proximity to a notable entity. Celestina007 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that he hasn't actually made an appearance for them yet Spiderone 21:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had taken that he was not from the primary (as in most notable) soccer team of Real Madrid. He is from some kind of youth team, juvenile team or something of the sorts, hence far less notable. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — WP:GNG is not met as there are no sufficient coverage in reliable sources I can observe. Celestina007 (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianna Kroplewska[edit]

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

Completely unnotable (even by Playboy standards) and any attempt to find coverage will only lead you to pornography. Can’t even find anything in Polish. Trillfendi (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

del no evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references used are to a Polish equivalent of WP:DAILYMAIL-like lowest denomination churnalism (Super Express) and like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rida Yazbeck[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. References are run of the mill refs that fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 15:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- the company (MyDX) is possibly notably but this is not inherited to the individual. 1292simon (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG we have enough RS to determine notability like the CNN and WSJ. The company MyDx Inc. may be slightly more notable the the person, however we should keep this for now. Wm335td (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a WP:BLP article and those references are company references. As they are passing mentions, they can't be used to prove WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 09:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:ATD I will try to improve the article by removing any poorly sourced or promotional material, before casting my vote. As well as wp:gng there may be c2 of WP:ANYBIO or it may be wp:toosoon.GDX420 (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRS only mentions the article's subject in passing.GDX420 (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, not a single significant coverage, all are passing mentions. Roller26 (talk) 09:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Gollan[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:BIO - while there are plenty of articles quoting him, I am unable to find any articles providing coverage of him as the subject. SmartSE (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yandy.com. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Horstman[edit]

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

n independent notability -- covered adequately in the article on his company. DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

merge either way. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Not significant. scope_creep^Talk 07:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - not independently notable to the company, article has many PROMO issues. 1292simon (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: merge/delete are two very different outcomes, so it's odd to see them suggested as comparable alternatives.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge since there has been no suggestion to delete Yandy.com and this article contains some info about the company that is missing in that article, like the current owner (private equity firm SPK Capital and then ultimately Playboy Enterprises). MB 05:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tomari Mari[edit]

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

New page review: this article is about the character name of an avatar assumed by a Youtuber in Japan. The content tells us that they have done many things on Youtube, and are famous within their niche. There is a great amount of detail, but nothing that suggests significance to me. Each detail is sourced but the sources appear to be social media, user-generated content and fan sites. Thus:

1. Twitter
2. Panora, does not look like a reliable source
3. Peatix, not a third party source
4. YouTube channel
5. Upd8, not a third party source
6. 12, 13, 14, 15 Toppa seems to be an online promotional outfit though it appears to have ‘editorial staff’
7. 10. 11. 16. MoguraVR does not appear to be a reliable source
8. V-data. User-generated content

Overall this article appears to be fancruft that relies on inadequate sources. Mccapra (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about her. Search results return only mentions of her name. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the above analysis. The sourcing is inadequate for an article at this time. BexBlack314 (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamada Hagras[edit]

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

Article asserts significance, so not A7. However, on examining the assertion it falls flat: google scholar profile. Does not pass GNG or NPROF. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this 2016 PhD, no sign of any other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG could very well be a case of WP:TOOSOON as stated above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of academic notability or any other kind of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. G5/G11 (and salted) by Liz. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trilla Venus[edit]

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

Article asserts significance, so not A7. However, does not pass NSINGER or GNG. The "Nobody safe" video has around 114k views on YouTube. There is little to be found in terms of sources here. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nomination, not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Article was speedy deleted twice this month G11/G12. Both were apparently pastes of his Spotify bio, and both creator accounts have been blocked for disruptive editing/spamming. I've removed the same Spotify bio from this attempt, created at Trilla venus. Captain Calm (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I've tagged this under G11 and G5 because this is a recreation of an article that an editor blocked by Justlettersandnumbers on September 17, 2020. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 15:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per nom and per G11/12. Deus et lex (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 14:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Barcha[edit]

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

The subject of this biography has no discernible personal notability, just a subservient kind linked solely to another notable person. Being a "muse" is not a notable occupation - other than that, her achievements are few in order to meet the criteria. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. No achievements are required to demonstrate notability: we look for significant coverage in reliable sources. She's famous for her association with Gabriel Garcia Marquez, but there's plenty of coverage demonstrating her notability. The New York Times and The Times (among many others) wrote extensive obituaries[20][21] on her death last month which practically satisfy WP:GNG on their own. pburka (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pburka. The Associated Press also ran an obituary [22] that we can add to the pile. (I didn't learn until today that her husband was only able to finish One Hundred Years of Solitude because she "persuaded their landlord in Mexico City to let the rent slide for seven months" [23].) XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established by reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per identified sources; we don't judge notability based on our opinion of the importance of their role. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This nomination is just a naked appeal to institutional misogyny. There is not the slightest attempt to argue that the extensive coverage the subject has received doesn't satisfy the GNG. Instead the nominator asserts that a woman whose spouse is more notable than she is should be treated as "subservient" to him and as undeserving of an individual biography. [24] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What an incredibly strong woman. There is nothing "subservient" about her that I can see. The very fact that she had such a profound impact upon her husband which allowed and encouraged him to win the Nobel Peace Prize is amazing. As stated above, her obituary made it in the Associated Press which we can all agree is a reliable source of notability. She passes the necessary requirements and I would love to see the article further expanded.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all information in the article is verifiable to reliable sources and explains why she is notable. It might be short on quantity, but that would be a discussion of whether to merge or expand. I'd like to see it expanded if possible. Archrogue (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NMIS[edit]

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

Fails the WP:GNG. Although I did find one decent source in the Sydney Morning Herald, GNG requires multiple sources to qualify. See also AfDs for supporting company Opmantek and its other software Open-AuDIT (all created by the same obvious COI editor LoCrow (talk · contribs)) – Teratix ₵ 12:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 12:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Obviously promotion QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opmantek[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Though I was able to find one decent article in the Sydney Morning Herald, NCORP requires multiple qualifying sources. See also AfDs for its software NMIS and Open-AudIT (all created by the same obvious COI editor LoCrow (talk · contribs)). – Teratix ₵ 12:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 12:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 12:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 12:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Obviously promotion QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not written from an independant perspective. Teraplane (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tidalis[edit]

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

WP:MILL puzzle video game. Notability (WP:N) is not established with the cited sources. IGN has no content, Eurogamer has a brief mention, and PC Gamer reproduces an e-mail by the developer, which is a primary source. Sandstein 15:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 15:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BEFORE fail on this one since a quick visit to Metacritic shows at least 3 notable reviews from Eurogamer, Edge Magazine and Hardcore Gamer. Gamezebo also has a full review and Rock Paper Shotgun has a short recommendation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Open-AudIT[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for products. PROD was contested in 2013 by obvious COI editor LoCrow (talk · contribs). See also AfDs for its supporting company Opmantek and its other software NMIS. – Teratix ₵ 12:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 12:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Obviously promotion QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Clearly, promotional. Clearly. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hockey East Best Defensive Defenseman[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Hockey East but I'm not convinced it needs adding there. Boleyn (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article does meet notability guidelines WP:GNG outlined as described here: [25] [26] and WP:LISTN here: [27] [28]. Additionally, most of the people listed are noteworthy by themselves, specifically for being top-level professionals, and the list would meet the second and third criteria as outlined under Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection Criteria PensRule11385 (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have plenty of articles on college hockey awards and this doesn't seem any less notable than most of them. In addition to PensRule11385's sources, I can find a number of articles about players who won (or even almost won) this award where the award is deemed important enough to address, e.g., [29], [30], [31], [32]. Rlendog (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Rlendog. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 21:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Proud[edit]

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

Due to discussion at WT:FOOTBALL#Ernest Proud it seems this probably fails WP:NFOOTBALL and from the look of things there isn't much to support WP:GNG either. Govvy (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he doesn't pass WP:GNG, and as per that conversation, hasn't played in a proper (non-amateur) international or in a league widely accepted as a fully-professional league. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - amateur footballer that doesn't pass GNG Spiderone 10:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL, and I could not establish notability per WP:GNG. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NFOOTY. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that the article passes WP:GNG and is therefore notable. There is also some agreement that the article needs to be improved, and to that, I say WP:DINC. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stepanakert pogrom[edit]

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

No reliable sources to verify the events and the naming, fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. The article is based mostly on propagandist sites and on misinterpretation of sources. GevHev4 (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This appeal looks like an example of WP:IDONTLIKE. I've literally provided sources from both BBC, and records from the RSFSR Supreme Council. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum

12:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is well-sourced with various references from reliable sources in multiple languages (including Armenian). It also surely meets the notability guidelines. If you think the article is biased, you can improve it. Proposing its deletion isn't the way to go. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 13:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event is easily sourced and significant, leading to the flight of nearly all Azeris from the city, see for instance HRW report or this book. I agree with the nominator that "pogrom" might not be the best title, however that is not cause for deletion.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eostrix. The event is readily verifiable in reliable online sources, among others, but the title may be changed. Brandmeister^talk 14:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a misleading/outright ridiculous justification for deletion ("No reliable sources to verify the events and the naming"). This event is famous and was described in a huge number of RS. My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. per WP:DELETE

The article contains provocation and violates the rules of Wikipedia.

1. The title of the photo on which the Armenian residents of Stepanakert are holding a demonstration demanding reunification with Armenia is presented as an anti-Azerbaijani demonstration, the motive of which, as shown in the article, is itself Anti-Azerbaijanism.
2. The author of the article used numerous Azerbaijani sources that obviously cannot be considered independent.

preslib.az
xankendi.az
modern.az
Afandizadeh, Rana Makhmudovna
Kulieva, J.
Gaffarov, Tahir
Gasimova, Flora

publications:

Baku: Elm
Baku: Azernashr
Azerbaijani Presidential Library
Azerbaijani Soviet Academy of Sciences
Architecture of the Soviet Azerbaijan

other unreliable sources

kavkaz.narod.ru

Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but preferably merge/expand

It is verifiably the case from reliable sources that a major incident of ethnic violence occurred in the Stepanakert area from 18-21 September resulting in the forced displacement of ethnic Azeris from the city. Verifiability and general notability are clearly satisfied.

This article at present is very biased. The "Background" section focuses exclusively on Armenian–on–Azeri violence. There's far too much reliance on obviously partisan Azerbaijani sources, including as sole sourcing for particularly lurid accusations like well poisoning, etc.

While the events meet the general notability guideline, that would seem to be equally true of the simultaneous and parallel expulsion of Armenians from Shusha, the gun attack by Azeri militants on a bus full of students which was used as the provocation or pretext for the Stepanakert attacks, etc. It would probably be best to cover the September 1988 Stepanakert events within a broader article, unless it can be shown that reliable sources actually do treat it as an especially notable event relative to everything else going on around the same time.

74.12.134.40 (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs to be expanded/sourced

The article is verifiable from reliable sources and it's meeting all conditions for general notability.

Just it needs expansion with reliable sources for past beginning of article.Ahmetlii (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article in need of expansion and improvements but is sourced and within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantinos Rostantis[edit]

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

Assistant coach. Doesn't pass GNG or NFOOTY. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chennaiyin FC#Technical staff or just delete. Not inherently notable per WP:NFOOTY, and this is the only news coverage I was able to find on the topic, which is likely not independent of the subject anyway. --Dps04 (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I have crossed out the redirect part per discussion below. My point on GNG and NFOOTY still stands. --Dps04 (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass general or football notability criteria. Coderzombie (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any significant coverage in the media so appears to be a WP:GNG fail Spiderone 14:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Redirect seems pointless to me. If the guys name is on an article search parameter will pick it up anyway. Govvy (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG failure. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yeah I agree that a redirect wouldn't be the best option as it would lose validity as soon as he moves to a different club Spiderone 15:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Giant Snowman 17:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Doesn't meet GNG, WP:NFOOTY-- Padavalam🌂 ► 18:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is a WP:CFORK of Legitimacy of the State of Israel, which is about the same topic, and has other problems. Sandstein 14:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arab rejectionism[edit]

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

The article has been nominated by Pincrete I have messaged the editor to complete the AfD Lightburst (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the AfD posting. No opinion on the substance of the proposal, but editors can judge for themselves. BD2412 T 23:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators rationale The article is little more than half-a-dozen random examples of use of a term which - while it may be regularly used in the Isr-Pal context - is not the subject of study in its own right and therefore not suitable as a WP topic. There are many word conjunctions, which are vaguely critical, used by one side to characterise the position of the other, Russian intransigence, European bureauocracy, Turkish sabre-rattling, American aggression may also be simarly used terms in particular contexts. The definition in the lead appears to be WP:OR, and necessarily so since I could not find any source defining the term. It is not even very neutral OR, since the term appears to be largely used by pro-Israel sources to negatively characterise the Arab non-recognition of Israel. The term might well be apt to be used within one of the Isr-Pal articles, but does not justify its own article IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Apologies for messing up the initial nomination and thanks to Lightburst. [reply]

I am reluctant to get drawn into the time-sink of articles on this conflict, but surely this topic is covered in better context and in a more neutral way elsewhere? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While there are a lot of resources on this topic - and this Youtube video gives a brilliant summary of the history from the Balfour Declaration of 1917, this article does not do that, nor does it have any particular depth or substance on this topic. It is simply WP:CHERRYPICKING ... -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru: the video you linked to is packed with anti-Palestinian propaganda, presenting an out-of-context narrative and a number of straight fabrications. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is a combination of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The article's starter was E.M.Gregory, an editor who was blocked as a sockpuppet. Around the same time, an editor who often edited in tandem with Gregory was perma-blocked by the WMF. I reflect on all of the AfDs which were compromised by E.M.Gregory and his sockmaster's involvement. But I digress. Lightburst (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meet WP:GNG like Whiteguru said there is a lot of sources on the topic and the WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP --Shrike (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between the topic of this article and that of "Legitimacy of the State of Israel", apart from this one having a rather pejorative word in its title? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger, Some would consider the to question the "Legitimacy of the State of Israel" a pejorative too. Its really depends on your POV Shrike (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But there's nothing pejorative, or prejudging the issue, about the title "Legitimacy of the State of Israel". It is a perfectly neutral title that does not depend at all on your POV. If the title was "Illegitimacy of the State of Israel" then of course it would not be a neutral title. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not at all notable, in fact doubtful whether it even exists as an independent thing, to the extent it does then it can be covered in other articles. If I put up an article called "Jewish (put something negative sounding here)", what do you think would happen?Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Daniel Pipes is a fringe theorist, so any discussion of the notability of this topic ought to disregard (or, at least, seriously discount) his views on the matter, which are currently reproduced in the article. No comment on notability in general. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Palestinian ([33], [34],[35]) / Arab ([36] [37], [38], [39]) is a long standing concept and field of study. The Arab/Palestinian rejection of compromise dates back to the earliest phases and persists to this day in some Arab regimes (e.g. Syria) that reject even the existence of Israel. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources given say WHAT it is. That the term is used, usually by those who wish to characterise the Arab position as unreasonable, as do some of these examples, is not doubted by me. That it is a subject in its own right, independent of issues such as the legitimacy of Israel, or history of attempts at diplomatic settlement, I DO doubt. The present article does not even attempt to be what you claim - a history of Arab rejection of compromise proposals - it simply quotes 5 random uses of the term, most of which coincidentally point to the speaker effectively saying "it's their own fault". I might find 100s of examples of Brexiteers speaking of "European intransigence", that would not make "European intransigence" a topic. Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some countries reject the existence of Israel. That is covered in the article that I asked Shrike about above, "Legitimacy of the State of Israel". Why do we need a second article about the same subject, but just devoted to one of the points of view? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arab rejectionism predates (1920 or even further back) the creation (1948) of the state of Israel by a few decades. It is also wider than just denying the existence of Israel, encompassing also a rejection of compromises that don't involve the recognition of Israel. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What people appear to be arguing, is that 'Arab rejectionism' is the pro-Israeli term for Arab attitudes to both the possibility in the past, or actuality since 1948 of a Jewish state of Israel - the Arabs don't want it at all under any circumstances, which is hardly news to anyone, but apparently needs a term to characterise it. But no source provides any definition either of the term, nor who uses it (exclusively non-Arabs AFAI can see). That the term is used as a mildly perjorative, mildly dismissive term is not in doubt. If it exists as an area of study at all - which I doubt - the current article certainly isn't it, which has an WP:OR'd definition and 5 or 6 random examples of use.Pincrete (talk) 08:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete, Here for example source that specifically discuss the term https://books.google.com/books?id=HRttDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT110 Shrike (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not discuss the term, but uses it for the concept of non-recognition of Israel, which is covered by the article that I have already linked several times. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur that the source neither discusses nor defines the term - it uses it to characterise what the pro-Israel source sees as the non-constructive Arab attitude to Judea and Samaria, which the source claims simply cannot by definition be 'occupied'. If the article were about the term, it might make sense, if it were about the history of non-negotiation by Arab entities, it would be merely a 'loaded' and perjoratively titled article which largely reproduced the content of better articles, but what we have is 5 or 6 random examples of use of a term, supported by a non-neutral and WP:OR definition. Pincrete (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notable concept with extensive sourcing. I find Benny Morris writing The Rejection in New Republic as particularly convincing.--Hippeus (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There still hasn't been an answer to my question about why we should have two articles on the same topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See what above? The only thing I see that's even bearing on the possibility is one keep proponent's dislike of the other article's title, and that's a complete non-starter: Wikipedia does not maintain multiple copies of articles on controversial subjects, each tailored to one faction or another's prejudices. Ravenswing 22:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to generate more participation to gain consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, // Timothy :: talk 10:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Lightburst the article violates OR and SYNTH and is more of a POV-pushing essay than anything else. Sowny (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article clearly violates OR and SYNTH as others have already stated. Plus, it's already covered in the other that people have cited. A brief mention that the idea pre-dates the creation of Israel is perfectly fine. You don't need a separate article for it. That said, I see no evidence it predates Israel anyway. Especially with quotes in the article like "Daniel Pipes regards the question "Should Israel exist?" as the "core issue" of the Arab–Israeli conflict. According to Pipes, "most Arabs at most times have emphatically replied with a "no." This attitude—what I call rejectionism—stubbornly holds that the Jewish state must be destroyed, with its inhabitants either subjugated, exiled or killed." Although, I do acknowledge that someone else in the article says "Arab rejectionism is responsible for having made the murder of Jewish civilians into a persistent feature of Arab policy that has been ongoing since the 1920 Nebi Musa riots", but from what it sounds like it is a 100% personal reading of whoever wrote that to call the murder of Jewish civilians in the 20s "Arab rejectionism", and it's meant more in the general way of "Arab's reject Jews." Compared post creation of Israel where it seems to be more of an actual idea, that's specifically put forth by Arabs as one. So, like I said, mentioning it in the other article is perfectly fine. It's not like articles about states or ideas don't have brief mentions of things that predate or influenced them anyway and I see zero reason not to do so here. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (a) "The article is little more than half-a-dozen random examples" says it right there; and (b) I'm waiting for any keep proponent to explain why it is necessary to keep this article when it's been made plain that there is already another article on the same damn subject. Ravenswing 13:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I restored the AfD believing that it was wrongly closed by its nominator. The closure is clear indication of withdrawal. See User talk:DiplomatTesterMan#AfD Closure. Hence, closing the discussion as KEEP, with Nomination withdrawn note per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (^talk) 11:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bilkis Dadi[edit]

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

Just being in the "TIME magazine's 100 most influential people" list isn't a criteria of notability is it? Does not meet GNG. DTM (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Short article that can be expanded, she is mentioned in 3 reliable sources JW 1961 Talk 10:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:BEFORE, there is sufficient in-depth, secondary coverage of her in RS online for her activism, including articles that don't mention her Time 100 nomination: [40], [41], etc. Captain Calm (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as being face of a resistance movement that is of national significance definitely makes her important to be available on Wiki. As a woman at her age, it is rare to become face of resistance [42]. We have examples of Maya Angelou and Arundhati Roy who fight for humanitarian cause, and their pages available on Wikipedia.
Delete Just mention in multiple sources does not depicts notability. Notable only for event, Wikipedia is not news and Fails WP:GNG. As already mentioned, the "Times 100" is not a criteria for notability at all. Zoodino (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject has become globally notable. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove "dadi" from title. -- Eatcha 08:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is a potential better article at Bilkis Bano‎, not without its own problems, which has just been turned into a redirect to the Dadi article. I accepted this at AFC with this comment on the talk page: The lady is notable enough, though I agree as WP: BLP1E. I have accepted it in its current state and to flagged for cleanup. It is a borderline acceptance and I feel it is useful to allow the community to decide. I remain neutral in this discussion. Fiddle Faddle 11:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No doubt she has become a notable person for showing her extraordinary courage and convictions at this old age. Look at all the favorable international news coverage she is getting. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) IceWelder [✉] 15:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Liljegren[edit]

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

While there are several sources that mention Fredrik Liljegren, all but one are principally about the company he co-founded: DICE, and he is only mentioned in passing. The last source focuses on RedJade, another company he worked at, again with a passing mention. In the same vein, most of the content that is sourced (I recently took out several unsourced parts) talks about DICE and only briefly about how he was involved, rather than about him directly.

There are only some key points about him in the sources:

He co-founded The Silents
He co-founded DICE with some Linnaeus Uni students
He worked at RedJade

I could not verify the integrity of the claims based on the Svenska Dagbladet article because full access to the SD archive is paywalled and the text in the preview thumbnail is illegible. However, the handful of paragraphs alone likely do not suffice for notability.

The subject, therefore, seems to fail WP:GNG, so I propose a redirect to the DICE article (merging is probably useless because all releveant content is already there). Favourably, the article should first be deleted and then a redirect created on top, so to avoid unwanted IP revert efforts. IceWelder [✉] 16:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add.: I remembered that I had put this through AfD once two years ago, where it was kept based on amendments made to the article. Looking at the article at the time of the closure, comparable to the one before my removal of unsourced content, the same issues were present then as are now. IceWelder [✉] 16:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 16:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 16:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I stated Keep in the last nom, and I still stand by them. By improvements made during the previous nom. In my opinion this passes WP:GNG. But more input is needed I guess.BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I said two years ago, Liljegren is the subject of articles in dominating Swedish newspapers over a period of at least twenty years, from 1994 and onwards. There's enough about him, not the companies, that I consider the notability criteria met. Unfortunately early newspaper articles are not necessarily easily accessible, but that's no different here than in many other situations where we rely on printed material. /Julle (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Julle, could provide some more examples for that? I could really only find one such article in Svenska Dagbladet. IceWelder [✉] 22:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes the WP:GNG with at least some substantial coverage in reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rock City Mall[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." WP:BEFORE showed WP:ROUTINE coverage, but not significant coverage that addressed the subject directly and in-depth or that established it meets NBUILD. // Timothy :: talk 11:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Largest mall in East and Central Africa. Large 4-story mall with a variety of stores, theaters, supermarket, play area, etc - looks equivalent to any large western mall that always is Kept. MB 20:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing appears to be notable about this mall besides the fact it exists? TripAdvisor has reviews though. Trillfendi (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Augere[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and probably rename to "Qubee") - their subsidiary Qubee is (or was) a major internet brand in Bangladesh and Pakistan, [43], [44], [45], [46]. The article's content also seem to be majorly focused on Qubee. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are run-of-the-mill business news, announcements, product launch news. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 16:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajet Sopi Bllata[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article created by a blocked sockpuppet that fails WP:GNG. No coverage whatsoever in English-language sources. Currently largely unsourced. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep I've been thinking a lot about several articles which highlight a WP:SYSTEMIC problem about cultures that have been underrepresented historically. This figure seems to have had some importance in the politics of his time in 19th century Kosovo. One of the articles which have been used as a source, has been written by Ukshin Zajmi, an exceptional Kosovan journalist who died a few months ago. The nr.2 leader of the ruling party of Kosovo made an announcement about this sad event - an example of how well respected this figure was in Kosovo. I've done some cleanup - more should be done - and linked Zajmi's article but in general, sources do not have to be available online or written in English (WP:GNG). --Maleschreiber ([[User talk:|talk]]) 23:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Maleschreiber. And per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also stubbed. Should not be re-expanded except with human-written content. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daphné Bürki[edit]

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

On reviewing this article, I note that the text is a lightly-obfuscated raw machine translation of the French-language version of the article. Wikipedia's longstanding view on machine translations is set out at WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. Please will the community authorise the article's deletion? You should consider that this lady may well be notable, and that WP:MACHINETRANSLATION applies despite her likely notability. —S Marshall T/C 12:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 12:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliable French sources exist (including some already in the article). Trillfendi (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage. The nominator has a good standard of French according to his userbox so why not just fix it, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because dropping a raw machine translation into en.wiki takes seconds, but repairing a raw machine translation takes a long time to do right; and it's always easier to retranslate from scratch than to repair. That's why we have this longstanding rule that a raw machine translation is worse than a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 06:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question. If there are concerns about machine translation, why not just stubbify as an ATD instead? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article's been re-created as a raw machine translation a few times now, and I think it's on someone's bucket list of Articles Wikipedia Should Have. I'm trying to force the next version to go through AFC for quality control, as I'm sure any stubbification would be reverted.—S Marshall T/C 19:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or (failing that) userfy to my userspace per WP:BLP. With reasonably high-profile public figures like this, we need to be sure we're getting things absolutely right, and it's not clear that the translation here is doing that. However, I think it's almost certain that the subject is notable, so if the concern is accuracy, why not send it to draft? That way, we can keep what is reasonable to keep and get rid of the bad machine-translated bits. And if S Marshall's concern is a lack of AfC quality control, draftifying seems a fair solution. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are reliable sources available and some already exist in the article but the major concern here is the translation. I will like to fix it but I'm handicapped here because I do not understand French. Northern Escapee (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but stubbify or (as an alternative) Draftify to allow clean-up. If notability isn't in question, deletion shouldn't be happen (in the majority of cases; there are of course exceptions such as TNT and copyvio). I agree machine translations shouldn't remain untouched, but I 1) don't see convincing evidence that a good stuffification won't stick, and 2) if not, draftifying to allow clean-up can occur. Also, where's the repeated recreation? Looking at the logs, it's only been re-created once, and there's also no evidence that one person has been repeatedly re-creating it against consensus. Of course, It's possible that I missed something, in which case I will reconsider my !vote. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agit (software)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, only source is written by app developer (see https://github.com/rtyley/agit/blob/master/README.markdown), almost completely written by the developer himself, see Robertotyley (talk · contribs) Ed talk! 07:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G5 Drmies (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Sul Shopping[edit]

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

Not in the source: WP:V requires that all articles have sources that contain information about the subject itself. Also, the creator Pumpie is now blocked for disruptive editing. Tetihgsaud (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an A7 in spirit. Would be an A7 if A7 could be used for malls. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Machin, California[edit]

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

Not recognized by GNIS. Durham calls it a post office named after a California politician and local real estate developer. PO in existence from 1896-1904. There is a Machin Avenue in Novato. Not clear where the post office was located ("four miles north of ~~Novato~~ Ignacio"). No evidence that it was a community and nothing that would establish notability. Glendoremus (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was pointed out to me that Durham wrote "four miles north of Ignacio. Correction made. Glendoremus (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When GNIS doesn't even include you, that's pretty damning. Clearly just a post office. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete If Durham says PO, and he's the only source, I don't see keeping this. The location indicated seems to be a largely swampy area just east of Novato with a few scattered buildings. Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Monique[edit]

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

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

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

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

I don't see coverage to meet WP:GNG, and just being a backup singer for a famous singer, releasing some music (of no note) and being in one documentary doesn't a notable person make, and certainly doesn't make a pass of WP:MUSICBIO. Perhaps a redirect to Beyoncé#Music_videos_and_stage or 20 Feet From Stardom is in order? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the end she is just a backup singer, and we have no clear signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MeetsWP:MUSICBIO guidelines. She is a notable public figure, has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself - including TLC featuring her as a music artist back in 2005 on "A Baby Story", an EP and various singles released and licensed by major sports organizations worldwide including the NBA, ESPN. She's also a brand ambassador for various brands including Focusrite [2], Apogee, Sparkpeople [3], No7 Cosmetics and more. Notable figure, but needs more of that information listed here to give this article more meat and credibility. She also holds 5 Grammy certificates for her participation in various nomminated and award winning movies and performances. Article may need improving, but any quick search will pprove notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weddingdock (talk • contribs) 18:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC) — Weddingdock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 17:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure how to improve the article directly, but I noticed from a news search there were several dedicated pieces covering her cancer scare. [47], [48] Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hatch[edit]

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

A non-notable event. Coverage is limited to local papers, the biggest is a Cleveland sized publication, not enough to indicate notability. It doesn't even seem significant enough seem to a mention at BGSU to me, but opinions may differ there. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – The Grid (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC) Upon reviewing this again, couldn't this be draftify? – The Grid (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have heard of the event and I am hours away from Bowling Green University. A quick Google search shows that the event is "known" in that sense. The article needs serious work, however, the event is notable enough for a wikipedia article, just the article currently only uses the local news/reports instead of getting statewide reports. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 12:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see some bits of coverage, but it's all local/brief/primary. doesn't meet WP:EVENT/WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quod Financial[edit]

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

PROD contested by obvious COI editor. Original rationale: "Fails the notability guideline for companies. Promotional tone." – Teratix ₵ 02:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 02:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 02:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 02:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no significant coverage, sources are press releases and trivial product announcements. Dylsss (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus not to delete. Merge is possible. Tone 08:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soy boy[edit]

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

I don't know why this was moved from draft space to article space; it's little more than a sort of dictionary definition with explanations from one or two reliable sources--but that they explain it doesn't make it encyclopedically notable. Note also that 2/3 of the "History" section is completely irrelevant, and that the "Public perception" part merely lists the sources and provides editorial commentary on them. I don't know if Wiktionary has an entry, but that's where it might belong--not here. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have a bunch of articles for slang terms with roughly analogous levels of notability; see the see also sections of beta male (slang) and the pages it leads to. Perhaps they all need to go, but I don't see soy boy as out of place among them. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 01:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at WP:WORDISSUBJECT and the available sources, I'm moving to keep. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 07:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. There are reliable sources that contain in-depth discussion about the term soy boy, rather than just usages of the term, so I think this passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Besides the sources in the article I found the following:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Alex Henderson (November 15, 2018). "Inside the 'soy boy' conspiracy theory: It combines misogyny and the warped world of pseudoscience". Salon. Retrieved September 15, 2020.
^ Jeremy Rose (November 8, 2017). "'Soy boy' is the alt-right's new most biting insult". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 15, 2020.
^ "Online culture wars and the science of soy boys". Diggit Magazine. Retrieved September 15, 2020.
^ Natalie Dunn (November 9, 2018). "The term 'soy boy' is popular with the far right. But here's why the phrase is problematic itself". Medium.com. Retrieved September 15, 2020.
^ Ellen Scott (October 28, 2017). "What is a soy boy?". Metro. Retrieved September 15, 2020.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources given are reliable and show in-depth coverage Spiderone 08:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat reluctant keep — I would have loved for this to be a mere dicdef, but alas there is enough encyclopaedic substance for an article under WP:WORDISSUBJECT, and the sources (incl. the ones listed above) are pretty strong, so it ought to stay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Effeminacy#The_effects_of_chemicals which is much the same topic. The point of WP:DICDEF is that topics are "grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by". It's a matter of correct consolidation, not deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems kind of like merging motherfucker into incest to me. TompaDompa (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles such as the Salon one linked by Lord Bolingbroke and the Independent one in the article show this is a topic that has been covered sufficiently for an article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With sources indicated above, the article easily passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Effeminacy per Andrew. There are some news and blog articles covering it, just like there are about basically any popular insult. The topic here seems to be Beta male (slang) (or Sissy or some sense of gender role, or I'm sure there are a lot more that cover effectively the same pejorative) plus some pseudoscience about phytoestrogen, which is better covered elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Budine[edit]

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

I don't see enough significant coverage of this person or his work to pass WP:GNG or WP:DIRECTOR. It also seems to be created and heavily edited by a likely conflict of interest/undisclosed paid editor (Josubu, who has the same name as Budine's production company).[49] Whisperjanes (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously undeleted (Apr 15, 2007). --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2007-04 ↻ restored, 2007-04 ✗ deleted, 2007-04 ✗ deleted

I'm not completely sure about soft deletes (or what they're really for), but also a note to closer - it seems it was deleted and restored in the past as part of an article move, rather than a regular deletion restoration, if that makes any difference. - Whisperjanes (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:DIRECTOR, WP:GNG and the article has way too much unsourced material for a WP:BLP. I could only find one article [50] that mentioned this person and it is not enough to show WP:N. Google, JSTOR, Gale, NYT and Sage Journals searches did not produce additional sources. Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antipodean Pharmaceuticals[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP--references given are all company press releases; no indication of significant third party coverage elsewhere. Web search of company yields a sea of press releases. Author's contributions indicate a single purpose account engaged in promoting the company and its products. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. Fails GNG and SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while agree that the article is pretty useless there is discussion about it and its research in the Otago Daily Times, Stuff, NBR, and NZ Herald. With a bit of time researching and writing I would think it should be able to overcome its present inadequacy (the article that is). I think there is enough to pass GNG. NealeFamily (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll have to provide links to articles you believe establish notability. The ones I find fail WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 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⁺⁺ 20:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per HighKing. 1292simon (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 11:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Beauty[edit]

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

Promotion of a company. Fails notability. WP:ROUTINE Priyanjali singh (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Seems like WP:TOOSOON. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Organization passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP as per the available citations. However, I would be eager to know SamHolt6 view on this as he has been dealing with this entity's page in the past. I may change my stand to match his decision if his assessment goes against my current vote. -Hatchens (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete it's all basic mill "coverage", pr and announcements. Praxidicae (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - can be treated as a stub (WP:STUB) article b'cuz it is one of the few well-known cruelty-free beauty brands Nathan811 (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's well known, you should have no problem finding independent coverage beyond PR puffery. There are thousands of cruelty-free brands, it doesn't make them notable. Praxidicae (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Praxidicae. Being "one of the few well-known cruelty-free beauty brands" does not automatically make something notable (t · c) buidhe 18:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Girls School[edit]

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

Promotional article, references do not establish pass of WP:GNG. References that might seem to suggest notability are in fact interviews or descriptions by people associated with the school. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An educational institute affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education must not be deleted. Priyanjali singh (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article on Central Board of Secondary Education reads that it unites public and private schools across India, to a ballpark of 20,299. There are no guidelines I am aware of that suggest association with said Board denotes notability by default. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of GNG; notability not inherited by affiliation with CBSE Spiderone 09:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found some references from reliable resources such as Forbes, ICSSR and Udaipur Times. DMySon 15:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet GNG or NSCHOOL. Sources do not meet SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 02:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NORG. (t · c) buidhe 18:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the requirements of WP:NSCHOOL. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 08:04, 1 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. Tone 08:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Ta Sarai Bigris Ni Badri[edit]

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

Non Notable film with nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to help it to pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability for 5 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regret. I can find mentions that strongly suggest that this film is notable. But I can't land any online sources to actually support an article. As WP:V is one of core content policies, I see no alternative but to delete, for now. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missy Doty[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NACTOR; none of her roles are significant enough (though I will admit her role in Sideways was memorable). Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACTOR multiple recurring roles in major television productions. Shameless and True Blood alone would satisfy our guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR : the criteria say significant roles, not just backstage dancers. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting "backstage dancer" from? There is no indication that she plays "backstage dancers" in the article or on Google. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable roles. MINOR guest roles in 3 episodes of True Blood and 4 episodes of Shameless do not establish notability under NACTOR. Only reliable source is the Esquire interview. Others are personal website and mention in article about lesbians on apparently a niche website with unclear notability - article no longer exists, anyway. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. Nature of references support keep. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 13:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GoHealth[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Native advertising. scope_creep^Talk 17:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is WP:LISTED on the Nasdaq as Nasdaq: GOCO. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is sufficient secondary analysis and commentary on the company within the coverage to meet WP:NCORP. As an aside, the author has been refreshingly up front about who they are and their role in the company, and she grasped the difference between a corporate listing and an encyclopedic article. See this discussion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per AfC discussion indicated above. Article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you please point to the three references that provide in-depth analysis. scope_creep^Talk 08:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Curb Safe Charmer, there are enough coverage from reliable and independent sources. Passes WP:NCORP. DMySon 14:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 8 analyst firms (at least) covering this firm. I've tried to access some analyst reports on the company but any I've tried appears to be behind a firewall but I can see enough to know that they have provided coverage beyond simple recommendations for buy and sell. Analyst reports meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic therefore meets NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it was a solid keep after User:Curb Safe Charmer voted. Nomination withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 13:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Otter[edit]

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

This isn't my usual field, but I do not think the sources show notability. They're sympathetic local interviews for a local promotor. I think this fails encyclopedic significance. A draft for this was declined, but the contributorcreatedthe article nevertheless. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Nominator. Non notable boxing promoter. DMySon 14:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tina & Lolo[edit]

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

Unreleased film, tagged since 2016. According to the article it will never be released...is it notable enough to keep on Wikipedia per WP:NFF? Donaldd23 (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a film that will never be released that fails WP:GNG so seems like a pretty obvious delete to me Spiderone 09:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreleased film lacking significant coverage in reliable sources so not passing WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EAthena[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Even in the one source mentioned (which is a conference paper, not peer reviewed), the software is only covered in brief mentions. No other papers in Google Scholar cover it in more than a passing mention. It has no hits in Google Books. There is no reliably sourced content worth merging into the parent article. czar 01:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 01:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure what else to say that Czar and the 3 past AFDs (however old) haven't already. GNG is not met, and unlikely to be met in the future. -- ferret (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY Delete and SALT This does not meet any of the inclusion criteria this time or the other 5 4 times it has been discussed. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt This is third nomination. The article is full of promotional content. No references that could justify the notability. DMySon 14:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the 5th discussion on this particular topic you can see the list on the top right. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth. One of those is a redirect. -- ferret (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, i saw only the discussion url and its title that shows 3rd nomination. Thank you for my knowledge. DMySon 02:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because the history of a korean game is hard to find attested in the english internet does not make it non-notable. Very eurocentric. I restored this because for some reason, instead of properly keeping the articles merged as in the last deletion discussion, people went out of their way to eradicate the information represented herein from the page it was merged to. Tens of thousands of people were benefiting from this software project at its peak, and thousands still benefit from its successors today. I do not understand the contention that it is insignificant just because it is difficult to find western sources. --73.203.82.95 (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The contention is not that it is "insignificant" but that it lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Such sources in Korean would be sufficient for writing an encyclopedia article on this topic were they to exist. czar 22:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such sources exist on the korean internet and can be found easily. For example, from the korean gaming press: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ko&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gamemeca.com%2Fview.php%3Fgid%3D124653 . This topic is primarily obscure only in english. To understand the significance of these software projects it is requisite and necessary to search the Korean internet as well as in the internet of the philippines, which are were most users are found, along with most reporting. Researching these things is difficult for me because the relevant languages aren't part of my cultural background or identity, but they ARE there. --73.203.82.95 (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but isn't that brief section about jAthena, not eAthena, which is only mentioned in passing? And wouldn't anything that needs to be said about jAthena fit adequately within the parent article? Still not seeing the case for significant coverage here. czar 02:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you lying? The eAthena forums are screenshotted clearly in the article; and more to the point, jAthena is not a distinct entity. The E and j are names refer to the language of transslation of a shared codebase. If you want to argue that there should be a generalised athena article, fine, by all means, but this is like arguing that the entire linux project is non-notable because few people use the esperanto tranlation. It is a red herring. --73.203.82.95 (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication that reliable sources, English, Korean or otherwise, give this software Significant Coverage. As a result, it fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided some indication in the chain above you. --73.203.82.95 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Powerful Stuff (public information film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable public info film. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE except one article that listed the film as "scary". Last nomination ended in no consensus as there was no participation in the discussion. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep this is one of the most well known films in the 80s everyone seen it at school in the UK. 94.175.6.205 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then surely it shouldn't be hard to find a reliable source for that claim? Spiderone 11:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely unsourced, and no RS appear to be immediately available. Darren-M talk 16:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep We have now a source in the infobox. --82.1.70.56 (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does that source demonstrate either WP:NFILM or WP:GNG? Spiderone 11:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolutely zero coverage in reliable secondary sources. IMDb and YouTube are not reliable sources ever and Screen Archive is merely a database listing; totally insufficient for notability purposes Spiderone 11:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree. Unless we can find a reliable source for this article, we'll just delete the article. --TPercival (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olabisi Akanbi[edit]

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

BLP of a non notable businessman. Much of the coverage relates to a court case although this isn’t an attack page. Plenty of promotional coverage and not much else. Mccapra (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mill and the overcitations are killing it ─ The Aafī (^talk) 21:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks all for your inputs, I quite don't agree on the part of the subject not being notable, media publications in various countries have their peculiarities, the subject is quite notable in his country Nigeria, I just added more reference sources to more recent publications made concerning the subject being recognized by three National youth organizations for his business achievements and youth development. These publications were made before the request for deletion. The subject's Music label has a verified page on Instagram and you and I know it's more easier to get a Wikipedia page than to be verified on Instagram. The article has nothing promotional other than just cited mentions of necessary contents that should make up a normal Wikipedia page. If there are areas anyone feel needs to be corrected, it can be pointed out for corrections rather than suggesting deletion. Thank you. Delords (^talk) 23:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons mentioned just above! Balle010 (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Other than an alleged criminal case, there is nothing to report. He appears to be a very ordinary business person and musician/producer. Lots of people are locally famous, but don't meet our standards for notability. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still support my keep request. More readings into some of the cited news sources tells he is not just an ordinary business person, he owns a group of different companies which are all doing well and runs an NGO. His music label was launched in 2004 and had some popular artists then under it's label and this was in a period when several news media in Nigeria only had a major focus on print media and not online, which is why you won't find much of that online. Out of current 29 references, about 22 of them were on other activity reports other than the said court case which has only 7 sources and I wonder why it became a basis for the deletion. There are other reliable reference sources that were not cited in the article. What works in other region must not always be the case in other regions. There are thousands of articles which won't level up to this, but were allowed on Wikipedia which makes me feel if there are any bias as to why this shouldn't be allowed. I am Nigerian and know more about what happens in Nigeria. Thank you. Delords (^talk) 18:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Delords: you can comment as many times as you like but you can only !vote once. Could you please amend one of your contributions from “keep” to “comment”? Many thanks. Mccapra (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: Oh, it's been corrected. Thank you for pointing that out. Delords (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: OK Delords, you have won me over! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ret.Prof: Thank you for your kind input. Delords (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Having just looked at the first six sources used in the article I observed at least five are press releases and one blatantly lacks editorial oversight. I share similar concerns with Bearian, as truly there aren’t enough significant coverage in reliable sources for this article to fundamentally satisfy WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your input @Celestina007: Apart from the six sources, there are over twenty others available, most music labels don't sign Artists behind closed doors, it always draws media attentions and most media agencies work together on reports they make. I don't agree with you on lacking editorial oversight or less significant coverage. You can do your personal Google search on the subject and all cited sources are reliable and major sources which you know quite well. Thank you. Delords (^talk) 22:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person lacks the multiple in-depth reliable sources he would need to be notable. Maybe there are better sources out besides what is currently in the article, but unfortunately they all seem to be massively lacking and I couldn't find anything that would be usable when doing a search for him in Google, just more trivial and bad sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted in hopes of generating a more definitive consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 00:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Sources are not sufficient. --IWI (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No Consensus: I have looked at the considerable references at the end of the article and am dumbfounded about why "they are not sufficient". It looks like we are not going to get consensus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your read of the sources is, as things currently stand theres six delete votes and three keep votes. Which sounds like a pretty clear consensus to delete the article. Its hard to see how anyone could interpret it any other way. Adamant1 (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ret.Prof, I agree with what Adamant1 stated above, furthermore please strike out the No consensus entry you made & enter Comment instead so as to avoid any kind of confusion. Celestina007 (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quobject Explorer[edit]

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

Non-notable software product, failing WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:GNG. Viable references are not forthcoming.

I also nominate this related topic:

-- Mikeblas (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Software articles of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. Only refs provided are a business registration and a trademark, not independent coverage. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Articles were created by user mludwig, and refs show Matthias Ludwig / mludwig@quobject.com as the owner/creator of the software, suggesting article may be self-promotion. Dialectric (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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