Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 5 September	7 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Imperial College Halls of Residence. Originally closed as a direct redirect but the target article is much shorter than this one so I'll properly close as merge instead. Tone 09:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson House, London

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

Non notable halls of residence with WP:BEFORE showing no evidence of available sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Imperial_College_London#Student_housing per WP:CHEAP. Already mentioned in a list entry there (though it's unclear if that list is really warranted). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The previous Imperial College Halls of Residence article was merged into the Imperial College London article, some years ago, after brief discussion at Talk:Imperial College Halls of Residence and a PROD, not a proper AFD. It is common and standard and good to have one or more list of buildings for a significant college/university, split out to prevent the main college/university article from being overwhelmed by this detail. See Category:Halls of residence in the United Kingdom and Category:University and college dormitories in the United States which includes dozens of these, as well as articles on individual residence halls/dormitories (which might meet wp:GNG and be legitimate, or which perhaps would better be merged into university-specific list-articles). Note, at Talk:Imperial College Halls of Residence it was noted by User:Le Deluge that "FWIW, I'd say a "List of..." approach like this article is probably the least bad approach. If you try to cram them all into the main Imperial article it starts to unbalance that article, and while the likes of Beit will certainly justify an article there's not really enough to justify an article on each individual hall. The comparison with Oxbridge colleges doesn't work, but most "posh houses in South Ken" are Grade II listed." That comment was ignored by the PROD, which should have been opposed at the time IMO.

Okay, to save time and get towards what is probably the right solution, i am just now restoring that previous article, and editing the College article to coordinate with that. I am not positive this list of dormitories should be separate from any other list of buildings of the College, but certainly there should be at least one list-article; it is reasonable to split this out of the College article and there will exist a large amount of cumulative coverage about individual ones or collections of them. Do note it has been accepted in Wikipedia to date that the list is valid material; this is just splitting it out and allowing for expansion. --Doncram (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, probably to Imperial College Halls of Residence, as that has been restored, and as this one does not need to stand separately. --Doncram (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The restored list-article links to Wilson House and also to similar Beit Hall article, which might also be merged to the list-article, with a note to its Talk page but without further discussion if it is agreed that Wilson House is to be merged there. Beit Hall and perhaps other individual buildings are listed buildings, but if they can reasonably be covered in one list-article they do not have to have separate articles. --Doncram (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Imperial College Halls of Residence as before, as that feels like the right balance here. Le Deluge (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Imperial College Halls of Residence. Not enough independent, in-depth coverage to warrant a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a listed building per WP:GEOFEAT.[1] -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge' to Imperial College Halls of Residence. Not enough independent, in-depth coverage to warrant a standalone articleAuthor Sanju (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Has nothing to support a stand-alone article. Merge to Imperial College Halls of Residence Alex-h (talk) 08:06, 10 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 Draftify. Move to draftspace for future improvement with better referencing when available. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SP Cinemas

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

Only produced one released film. Not notable in any manner. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, from their website I found that they have produced/completed three movies (as added in the article) and two movies in pre-production stage, also distributed a movie which was released this year. So just to verify and give a point here, I contact them from the website and the reply is, the first production was released in 2019 and the next two movies were scheduled for release this year, but postponed due to the current lockdown situation. So, "only produced one released film" is a valid point which I also thought before creating the article, but also thought about like their reply "if there was no covid pandemic those movies would have been released by now" while checking their website and other related articles. Anyway it's upto the admins - whether to delete or merge/redirect now or keep the article and make improvements, because I have already used almost available sources and news links related to the subject/article. SidhardhRamesh ^💬 21:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This person created the page and is connected to the house.TamilMirchi (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Until there are more sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as per Kailash. Abishe (talk) 11:33, 10 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 Bena, Virginia. Make up your mind, people. Redirect is a compromise since you apparently can't. Content can be merged from history; if not, see WP:RFD. Sandstein 10:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buck’s Store Museum

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

All links appear to be PR or notices from the immediate area. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Bena, Virginia. While it has local exposure, it does not pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per Onel5969.s suggestion. I had hoped I would be able to dig up some newsprint from 1888-present, but I searched every way possible and found none. As it is this is a local curiosity and perhaps a source of pride for a small community. As WP:ATD-M would fit with our policy. Lightburst (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge, I find no sign of notability, but as suggested above it may be a local point of interest so can be merged into Bena, Virginia.
Delete or Merge - If even Lightburst was unable to find anything on this one, its probably a safe bet that it just does not have anything outside of very local coverage/notability. Rorshacma (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge -- Visitor attractions are worth having an article on. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 13 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Varadhi

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

Couldn't find any notable reviews/sources for this film. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS reviews available, fails WP:NFILM. --Ab207 (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 14:10, 12 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 10:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rim El Benna

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

Search shows this article and a ton of self published stuff (i.e. social media), not notability through reliable independent sources Naleksuh (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Not notable - fails GNG. IWI (chat) 16:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. See What Women Want Magazine, Tuniscope Magazine. She also acted in an award winning film, Les secrets. I'm not sure of the significance of her role, but she's one of only five credited actors. Note that there's also a Palestinian singer with the same name (d. 2018), and that her first name is sometimes transcribed as "Rym". Searching for her Arabic name (ريم البنا) brings up many hits, but I don't read Arabic, so can't evaluate them. pburka (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in multiple independent sources meets WP:GNG. Additional information can be found when searching for alternative English spellings for the first name (such as Rym or Reem) XVDC (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to find sources and failed to get any. Mostly are about Rim Banna. I am not denying that there won't be any sources available, but Rim El Benna must not be confused with Rim Banna, because both are almost "similar names". Anyway's Pburka's keep argument has some weight. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 18:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It sounds like the best sources are going to be in Arabic, and due to variability in transliterating her name, people who can read the sources in the original Arabic are in the best position to evaluate them. Hopefully relisting this for another week will bring some of them here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 6 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hanmi Buddhism

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

Fails notability guidelines for a church or religious organization. No reliable sources not affiliated with the organization appear to be available. --Spasemunki (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. --Spasemunki (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. WP:BEFORE included looking for relevant sources in Google/Google News, JSTOR, the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism, and other general sources. Organization has a single location in Long Beach and an affiliate in Minnesota, but there seems to have been no English-language media coverage of them other than a single notice about relocating the temple in a local paper. Claims a centuries-old lineage, but searches for critical terms "Hanmi Buddhism", "Yu Tian Jian", "Dari Rulai" and "Dechan Jueren" reveal no reliable information specific to this group. --Spasemunki (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails wp:gng and wp:org. No significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. JimRenge (talk) 09:51, 7 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 17:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Vale Cotton

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

This article was deleted and then recreated two times before, [2] [3] but also fails WP:NACTOR, to reflect its general notability. --122.2.10.69 (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his career still has not amounted to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral or weak delete his role as the title character in Hey Arnold: The Jungle Movie and as a recurring character in over 40 episodes of Desperate Housewives puts him at least in the grey area of WP:NACTOR criteria #1: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Two is technically multiple but as one of the roles was "merely" a recurring character, not a main character, it doesn't push it out of the grey area into "obviously meets the criteria." Nothing of value would be lost if this were deleted without prejudice to un-deletion into Draft: space when his resume is a bit more solid or directly to the main encyclopedia if he is "obviously" notable, such as by being nominated for a major award. I don't think it would benefit from being moved to Draft: space right now, since the notability issue is not something that can be fixed by editing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if there is no other personal information like birth date, which is invalid/unsourced. --122.2.10.69 (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I did find a source for his birth-date of June 25, 2002 in San Diego, California. I'm not sure if it is reliable, since it was copied from IMDB in 2014: [4]. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found that reliable source [5] to reveal exactly his own age, so this is the last option you've looking for. --122.2.10.69 (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should ask Denniss (talk · contribs) for that source reliability that provides year of birth? which is still unreliable. --122.2.10.69 (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note This deletion discussion was created by a block-evading IP.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be easy to close this as delete, but given the dubious circumstances around the nomination (i.e. block-evading IP), I'm going to relist this to get a broader set of opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:15, 8 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 23:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Programming School++

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

New page review: this has been sitting in the queue for six months. Various reviewers have looked at it but aren’t sure about notability so bringing it here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sourcing doesn't meet WP:ORGCRITE standards, primarily consisting of interviews and trivial coverage. I tried searching for better coverage but just found more of the same. There's also a pretty good chance that this was created by UPE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like Rosguill, can't find any better sourcing. Does not meet notability criteria.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any better sourcing. Does not meet notability criteria. Author Sanju (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the school. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:11, 9 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey H. Cohen

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

He doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Comment, leaning keep. Scholar lists his h-index as 26, which seems insanely high for an anthropologist. I'm sure there are reviews out there of his several highly cited books, which I'll look for. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes both WP:PROF#C1 (heavy citations to his works) and WP:AUTHOR (multiple published reviews of multiple books, now in the article). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear pass of WP:PROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Article passes WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR Alex-h (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would not call an h-index of 26 "insanely high" for anthropology. Even social anthropology, which seems to be what Cohen does, sits somewhere between the humanities and sciences, so one does expect publishing rates there to be higher than, say, for the classics professors. Still 26 is pretty good, and 5 top cited publications are at 200+. He also has several editorship (2 journals and a book series). So overall a plausible case for passing WP:PROF#C1. Also, based on multiple published book reviews, looks like passes WP:AUTHOR as well. Nsk92 (talk) 19:16, 13 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 11:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Evangelista

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor who does not meet our arguably far too broad inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 7 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Martens

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

Borderline (hence it sitting in the CAT:NN backlog for more than 11 years) but I couldn't find the sources to show he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for either academics or architects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More or less entirely unsourced, his citation record does not make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1, and I don't see any other justification for keeping this. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 13 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bahman Tavoosi

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly demonstrating enough improved notability to override the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahman Tavoosi just three months ago. Although this article is written differently enough that a speedy nomination on G4 grounds was already declined by another administrator, and thus can't simply be respeedied anymore, it isn't actually improving the case for notability enough to get kept — it's still referenced mainly to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, such as film festival screenings getting sourced to IMDb, a WordPress blog or the film festivals' own self-published websites about themselves, rather than media coverage about the films — and the only two sources which are real reliable source coverage in real media (#2, Point of View and #3, National Post) don't add up to enough coverage to get him over WP:GNG all by themselves if all the other sources are junk. And winning minor awards at minor film festivals like Black Nights or Brussels Independent also isn't a notability clincher in the absence of better sourcing, either -- for a filmmaker, "notability because awards" requires major awards that get media coverage, not just any small fry film award that exists. None of this is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much more quality sourcing than this. And furthermore, the article has been flagged for likely paid editing issues, which is a conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I fail to see the basis for notability here and it does indeed read very much like self promotion or paid editing. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I have provided links numerous times from different links from different sources not by the artist yet still this article is subject to notability or PAID EDITING. Please read and check sources before such a claim. I spent many hours within the past couple of months to create the article yet you keep repeating the same claim over and over. There are plenty of sources available online from different film festivals to prove the identity of the artist and apparently he won few prizes this year only for his new documentary. Inception 111 (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)inception 111Inception 111 (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A filmmaker does not get an article on the basis of having catalogue entries on the self-published websites of the film festivals where his films have screened — that's directly affiliated primary sourcing, not independent or notability-making reliable sourcing. A filmmaker's ability to qualify for an article depends on the volume of independent attention that has or hasn't been paid to his films by journalists and film critics in the media. But you've only shown two sources which meet that standard, which is not enough. And a filmmaker is also not handed an automatic notability freebie on the basis of having won just any award at just any minor film festival on the planet — to be notable for winning awards, a filmmaker has to win a major award on the order of an Oscar, a BAFTA, a Canadian Screen Award or the top tier of internationally recognized film festivals like Cannes, Berlin or TIFF. The Tallinn Black Nights Film Festival and the Brussels Independent Film Festival are not internationally prominent enough to secure the notability of a filmmaker all by themselves — if winning their awards is the only notability claim he has, that isn't good enough either. The extent to which any award counts as an article-clinching notability claim is always strictly coterminous with the extent to which media report the granting of that award as news. Awards that get covered by the media confer notability — while awards that do not get covered by the media, and thus have to be sourced to the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself because journalistic coverage about that award presentation is not available to source the statement to, do not. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the very well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 8 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. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Trach

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

Appears to fail WP:NSPORT, but there is no SNG for volleyball that I can find so am bringing to AfD for consensus. There is a better profile than this article here. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On a second look, I noticed that the article says (without a source) she played in Petro Gazz Angels in 2018. As sport articles seem to be generally kept if an athlete has played in a professional league, I thought I'd mention that here. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments or votes so far, except from the nominator. Relisting again may help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no significant independent coverage of her that meets WP:GNG. All I found were some routine sports reporting and some listings in databases. Being a professional anything isn't grounds for WP notability and the Petro Gazz Angels appear to be more of a semi-pro team. I found no evidence she meets any notability criteria at WP:NSPORTS such as competing in the Olympics or at a world championship. Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 12 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 23:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Britto

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

Article undeleted at WP:REFUND. The subject is mentioned in passing in these references, but does not receive the in-depth coverage one would expect for passing WP:GNG. I am unaware of him passing any other notability guidelines. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from being part of a notable family. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am the creator of the article.TamilMirchi (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability; possibly eligible for speedy delete due to article creator consenting to deletion Spiderone 10:20, 11 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Stotelmyer

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

Doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. Has been in the CAT:NN backlog for over 11 years. Boleyn (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very minor level sports commentator, the sources do not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only coverage of him (and there is not much) is very local. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:06, 13 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Sargent Johnson

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

Successful artist, but doesn't meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm somewhat wary of WP:NEXIST in this case, but Google and Newspapers.com searches turned up next to nothing. The references in the article mostly point to illustrations she had done, rather than content about her. Curiocurio (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is an obit in the NYT ([6]), which ordinarily would indicate notability, but in this case it does not. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:04, 13 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator with only keep !votes from others. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tod Hanson

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

~~Has had success, but doesn't have the coverage or significance of work to meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN's backlog for over 11 years. Boleyn (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep finding sources was hard slogging, but it turns out that he has done a number of high profile public artworks over the last decade (two in subway stations and a 7 storey-tall mural on a building at the London School of Economics). The quality of the available sources is not spectacular, but there is no doubt that he meets some basic form of GNG, and it's also possible that he may meet NARTIST through the creation of a well-known body of public artworks. I have added a number of sources to the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject's works are displayed as public artworks, many of them permanent, including the first public artwork commissioned by the London Overground. These works and their coverage show notability and meet WP:GNG. The subject also passes WP:ARTIST. AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per excellent points above. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 05:42, 7 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Gazzarri

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

WP:1E at best - a terrible story, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL and doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even by the grisly standards of the Argentine dictatorship the murder of a priest was unusual. There is a great deal of discussion about his case, albeit much of it is not in depth. Some of it is however is more detailed, such as this, here here [7] and here. It is certainly sustained over many decades in Argentina. Lastly, this case forms part of the ongoing discussion of the accusation that the Vatican supported the dictatorship, even to the extent of condoning the murder of some of its priests. This remains a topic of great controversy affecting the current Pope. Mccapra (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per User:McCapra (if you could add some of the sources you mention to the article, doubtless that would help greatly).Ingratis (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:McCapra's detailed answer.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:20, 13 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. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selman Kadria

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

An article created by a blocked sockpuppet that fails WP:GNG. There isn't a single English-language reliable source that mentions this figure nor the man he is purported to have killed. Currently largely unsourced. 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 Politics-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 Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. (WP:GNG). I have expanded the article with two articles by academic historians, a peer-reviewed article that discusses a folk song about him and a news piece which discusses the nomination process which the Prime Minister of Kosovo started in support of decoration of Selman Kadria as Hero of Kosovo. Numerous folk songs have been written about this figure, his tomb is a monument, streets have been named after and in 2019 the nomination process began for the HoK medal.

Side comment I found several sources for Milić Krstić in Serbo-Croatian media[8], but I haven't used them as they discuss topics beyond its scope. There's a photograph of Krstić's activities on wikicommons, which the nominator of the AfD, has also nominated for deletion. Apparently, the Chetnik commander Krstić was notable enough that a picture of him and his victims made it to wikicommons 100 years later.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The Academy of Sciences and Arts of Kosovo published in 2013 the collected works of Ali Podrimja, who was well-known as a poet, but was also a columnist and a literary critic. He discusses Selman Kadria, Milić Krstić and Ramë Vuthi on p.53. It's another reliable source which highlights the enduring notability of the article's subject.--Maleschreiber (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because a sock created this article, that's no reason for deletion. As Maleschreiber showed, there are multiple examples which show the notability of Selman Kadria. The last Afd in 2016 also failed. Crazydude1912 (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A person nominated as Hero of Kosovo (if true) is likely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can verify the nomination via a google translate of the source. Some of these articles and similar articles about Belarusian figures who can't even get their names written correctly in international media - as of 2020! - indicate the inherent WP:SYSTEMIC problem that exists in coverage which we have to address in many cases.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:30, 13 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 19:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Case for Kosova

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

Fails WP:NBOOK and doesn't meet any of the five standards of WP:BOOKCRIT. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-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]

Delete: I haven't been able to find any reviews or any other coverage that could form the basis of an article about this book. Given the total lack of sources and the fact it's an edited volume, I don't think redirecting this to the author's article would be particularly useful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly does not meet our notability requirements for books.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anna di Lellio has written/edited works which have seen many reviews. The Case for Kosova doesn't seem to have garnered a sufficient number of reviews which would make it pass the threshold set for notability.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:37, 8 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Blood My Compromise

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The only notable English-language references to it are found on en.wiki, IMDB , a promotional website and a brief profile published by the Brooklyn Film Festival . Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:10, 6 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akademeia High School

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

Not notable, made solely for school promotion. All references from school site. Piotr Bart (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Piotr Bart (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article sourced entirely to materials from the institution itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously a promotional entry, fails WP:NORG, WP:NSCHOOL. Np Polish interwiki is a red flag, also speaking as a Pole, most private high schools are relatively new and tend to be seen as places for rich bad students to buy a degree, and don't get much coverage, good or otherwise, and have next to no history. How come it has a Vietnamese but not Polish interwiki? Wonder if the WP:SPA which created it, almost certainly an undisclosed WP:PAID, threw in an extra article in their nativa language as part of the deal? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' it is a completely promotional article and i don't think that it is according to the nomsAuthor Sanju (talk) 14:28, 8 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. Tone 17:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Device ecology

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

Essay on a probably non-notable neologism in technology and computing. Seng Loke, a computer scientist at Deakin University ([9]) is an author or co-author in all the works cited in this article. Searching for "device ecology" -loke on Scholar yields 177 results, which isn't nothing, but I'm not sure it's sufficient for a standalone article. For ease of reference, the top hits are doi:10.1145/2669485.2669493 (44 cites) and doi:10.1145/1520340.1520661 (10 cites). I considered a redirect to information ecology but it appears only vaguely related. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [10] [11] [12] - A lot of articles in the literature that uses (Device ecology) - This is enough to pass WP:GNG. Charmk (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. This is clearly a thing as we are increasingly surrounded by a plethora of smart devices. The term "ecology" may be even be quite literal as, for example, the lighting in my aquarium is controlled by an app on my smartphone or the ambient air is filtered by a networked purifier, which continuously monitors the air quality. It is regularly amusing when a video on one device says something which makes the other devices spring to attention, such as "ok, Google". You then get a babble as they start trying to talk to each other. Wikipedia already has AI bots and just wait until it is voice-controlled too... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 7 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. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiru FM

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

Though the radio station is quite popular in Sri Lanka, the article lacks reliable secondary sources and it's quite difficult to obtain reliable sources. Abishe (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, insufficient references. Whiteguru (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's no reason that this shouldn't persist as a stub that can be improved. A quick search for "Hiru FM" limited to .lk turned up several newspaper articles discussing the station that could be used to expand it. Carter (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The only source in the article seem to be reliable. Search results return a lot of primary sources, notably from Hiru News. However, I found some reliable sources which talk about the station, whether fully or briefly: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] and [18]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. Only passing comments. - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:44, 7 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 2021 New York City mayoral election. Tone 17:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne Morales

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

Non-notable political candidate fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Very little coverage of Morales exists apart from articles in Gotham Gazette and BeLatina. KidAd talk 05:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 New York City mayoral election. For better or worse, Wikipedia sets a higher bar for political candidates than it does for most other people, typically requiring some significant coverage of the person independent of the campaign to qualify for a stand-alone article. I'm not seeing that around, and even within the category of election-related coverage I'm not seeing a whole lot about Morales yet. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 New York City mayoral election where neutral information about all of the candidates can be added. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 2021 mayoral election article. With that election over a year away, it is too soon to really know who the candidates will be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but no prejudice against a redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 9 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 AdventHealth. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AdventHealth Sebring

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

This hospital doesn't seem notable enough for an article. All the sources in it seem to be primary except for one. Which is about an anthrax scare, not the hospital, and it is a dead link anyway. I wasn't able to find anything else in a WP:BEFORE about it either, just trivial passing mentions in articles about other things. So, the article doesn't seem to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG.

Comment lack of independent reliable resources. Tone is promotional. Priyanjali singh (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not vote delete then? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, Yes, i am changing my vote to delete.Priyanjali singh (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AdventHealth this would be the best thing to do with this article, it could become notable in the future. Catfurball (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was a WP:BEFORE performed on its original name - Florida Hospital Heartland Medical Center? – The Grid (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to repeat what I said in the other AfD where you made the same comment, I'm not going to dignify the question with an answer except to say if you have multiple in-depth reliable sources about the hospital under its old names feel free to provide them. That's what people usually do in AfDs instead of asking superfluous questions. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response made in other AfD. I meant nothing bad by it. – The Grid (talk) 00:00, 15 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 17:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tarmali (caste)

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

Not enough information here to merit its own article, can easily be folded in as a section of Pasi (caste). Would have started a merge discussion but creator has been reticent to discuss similar issues. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (the base name Tarmali is already a redirect). The only cited source says that Tarmali is a regional synonym for Pasi, not that it's a subgroup. Government sources also say that it's just a synonym. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Thjarkur Spiderone 23:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom-- Padavalam ► 14:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 20:37, 7 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. Tone 17:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decade of Behavior

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

This seems to a badly sourced article about a nickname American Psychological Association gave to the 2000s. Which, not surprisingly, apparently lacks notability. One of the references in the article doesn't even have anything to do with it and the other two are extremely questionable. So, I'm pretty sure this fails WP:GNG. Maybe instead of just deleting it the article could be merged with or redirected to American Psychological Association, but it barley seems worth it. Although, it is an option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was a PR initiative, but one in which multiple organizations participated [19][20], and about which independent sources exist. For example, Science reported on the early attempts to get it going [21]. I haven't yet seriously tried to sift through the 2,100+ Google Scholar hits for the phrase, some of which I expect will be false positives, but Baumeister et al. (2007) looks pertinent. If that is the reference which the nomination describes as not having "anything to do with it", then I'm a bit confused, since it contains language like this: It seemed an extremely wise move therefore when, impressed by the success of the brain decade, APA came up with the idea of making the first decade of the new century “The Decade of Behavior.” The goal was to focus attention on the contributions of psychology toward understanding and affecting important behaviors and consequent life outcomes, thereby adding relevance, credibility, and (one hoped) big research budgets to the enterprise. This emphasis was—or at least should have been—especially welcome to social and personality psychologists, whose research programs would seem to be in a position to benefit greatly from a renewed recognition of the importance of behavior. It is now past halfway through the putative Decade of Behavior and is therefore a fair time to ask, “How's it going?” In particular, how are social and personality psychologists doing? To anticipate our answer, we think they are doing fine in many respects—but not in respect to studying behavior. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The key thing for me there was that the essay said "In particular, how are social and personality psychologists doing?" Which made it seem like the article was more about social/personality psychologists. The APA doesn't have a monopoly on everything related to behavioral psychology during that decade just because they came up with an initiative about it or whatever and I'd think for articles to count they would specifically have to be about the initiative. Not behavioral psychologists. Where it's only mentioned as a side thing. At least the other articles they actually have "Decade of Behavior" in the title. Whereas, "Psychology as the Science of Self-Reports and Finger Movements: Whatever Happened to Actual Behavior?", because again it's not about that. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I looked at Google Books coverage: 1) several pages here (50-53), a section here (can't see the second+ pages in google preview, didn't check Amazon); many scholar works like [22], and this was also covered by ASA's Footnotes newsletter [23] and mentioned in passing in several others: [24]. I think this term can be said to have entered into the history of science and passes WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per identified sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:06, 6 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. Tone 17:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Papas

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

Former American football coach. After a deletion at AfD 9 years ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Pappas, note the apparently wrong double "p") and a recent recreation, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 29 decided to send the article back to AfD to re-determine the subject's notability. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 17:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one year as lead football coach at a small college does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per [25] [26] [27] [28]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passews GNG as per the sources cited in the article and particularly the four cited above by Editorofthewiki. While it is true that one year as lead football coach at a small college does not make one notable, it also does not make one non-notable if there has been significant coverage. Coverage from the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, and ESPN takes this beyond what a "small college" coach might be expected to get. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Hall of Fame position is also significant for notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:58, 11 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 10:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs for point cloud processing

(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 to Point cloud but, certainly in its current form, this information would add little to Point cloud but take up a huge amount of space. Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only five have links to articles about them. Some have more than one link to their article on the list. Most of the blue colored links are to other websites not Wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 17:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence available to show that this topic has been discussed at length in reliable sources Spiderone 11:41, 12 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 10:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omsk Oblast road accidents

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

No evidence of notability or that the subject has been discussed as a single topic. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Timofei Vatolin (talk) 12:14, 10 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 List of DOS commands. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SETVER (DOS command)

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

Article is WP:WWIN - WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not a manual of DOS commands. // Timothy :: talk 08:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Author info (WP:OR?): Maybe it's WP:SYNTH, but when EXE2BIN was pushed off the standard DOS disk in 3.3 (i.e. pay extra for a "goodies"/2nd disk), PC Magazine's (sarcastic) "Thank you, IBM" item showed how to patch the 3.2 version, to run on 3.2 or later. This may have been part of the History of Software for why "SETVER" was introduced: to minimize breakage and recognize customer pushback. Years later, when the US Airforce didn't agree with Microsoft's schedule for getting off Windows XP, the end-of-support date was extended. SETVER has a place in software history. (see Backward compatible) Pi314m (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom: I think this is a case where Wikipedia:Notability (software) should be amended to account for command line tools. Under the current essay, the same tool distributed under an open source Linux would be notable, because of the looser source standard, but if it was distributed commercially under DOS or Unix it would not be notable, under the stricter standard. // Timothy :: talk 23:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed, Wikipedia is not a DOS manual. DEL Whiteguru (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Comment re Wikipedia:Notability (software): there is another article, Wikipedia:Software notability, and it lists "introduced an important technical innovation" and mentions "installed as part of the operating system on newly built systems." I agree that Wikipedia is not a DOS (or Windows: it's part of Windows 10) manual, but SETVER was an innovation. Pi314m (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. First of all, this should not have been created under this title since SETVER already existed as a redirect to List of DOS commands. As it appears there no no consensus that this command is notable, content should be merged into the list where there is already a couple of sentences. MB 01:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to List of DOS commands. Wikipedia is not an MS-DOS manual. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article topic is not suitable for a Wikipedia page. Charmk (talk) 04:07, 17 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of sportspeople by nickname

AfDs for this article:

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

Not needed; trivial ~~and possibly WP:OR~~. Another point is that these sorts of lists will never be ~~extensive~~ exhaustive. There are millions of sportspeople on Wikipedia; if we were to assume that even only 1% of them had some sort of a nickname, we would still be talking about ~~hundreds~~ tens of thousands of nicknames. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of association football players by nickname. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is, in fact, at least the 6th nomination! pburka (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list is likely to aid readers in navigation and provide information per WP:NLIST and WP:LISTCRIT Lightburst (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems like a sensible navigational list. certainly the redlinks should be removed (as implied by the nominator, it would be absurd to try to create an exhaustive list of people with nicknames), and perhaps some additional sublists should be spun out, but that can happen at any point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What's the OR argument? This page has over 150 references. Please elaborate. pburka (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I copied the sentence from the other discussion (where the article wasn't fully sourced). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this AfD closed as Delete, shouldn’t this also close as Delete? They are very similar lists. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And if these are all sports related nickname lists which are allowed...Shouldn't we allow this list? Probably not because WP:OTHERSTUFF but you will hopefully get my meaning. Lightburst (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That list isn’t as specific. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, having looked through everything, especially the last AfD, I'm going to say Keep. Foxnpichu (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Notable enough for news media to mention them, so notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 20:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Keep for all the reasons cited in the last five AFDs for this article. Worthwhile and useful lists. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per consensus from the footballer AfD Spiderone 10:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, the deletion cited is a reason why keeping this article is more important than ever. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the nomination that we don't need as its arguments are flawed, being contrary to policy such as WP:NOTPAPER, which makes it very clear that there's no practical limit. We already have lists with hundreds of of thousands of entries. Notice that list of sportspeople, list of species and list of minor planets are all blue links, for example. When such lists get large, we just subdivide them. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sportspeople, species, and planets are all countable, and we can make exhaustive lists about them. We will never be able to fully determine all the notable nicknames. It's inevitable that some nicknames aren't going to be included. Whereas, all minor planets will be included, and all players who have made at least 30 international caps for Lebanon will be known. We will never be able to 100% know all sports-related nicknames. If the nickname is notable, it can be noted in the specific player's article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm confused by this argument. These are all countable in the mathematical sense (they're not infinite). We can never expect to have an exhaustive list of sportspeople, nor of minor planets (on the other hand, numbered minor planets is just about manageable). That a list is incomplete doesn't seem like a good deletion rationale, and WP:LISTCRIT explicitly advises against trying to make most lists exhaustive. pburka (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uncountable does not mean what you think it means. The definition is "too many to be counted". Even rice on a plate is uncountable (even though, obviously, the number of grains of rice can technically be counted). I agree, we won't have an exhaustive list of sportspeople; what we do have, however, are specific lists, such as footballers who have made at least 30 international caps for Lebanon (as I have pointed out above). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Such lovely WP:FANCRUFT but it violates notability guidelines for stand-alone lists. This subject as a whole has not been discussed as a group or topic by independent reliable secondary sources, therefore the list is simply a directory or catalog and doesn't qualify to be a standalone list in Wikipedia. See also WP:WWIN, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Normal Op (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It hasn't been discussed as a group by reliable sources? Multiple books have been written about this topic. pburka (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a staple filler of sports journalism, e.g. ESPN's "The List: Best of the best sports nicknames" (mostly people), CBS Sports' "The 18 Absolute Best Nicknames in All of Sports Today", etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ubiquity of the phenomenon and discussion of the same in reliable sources. BD2412 T 05:48, 10 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. Socking aside, there appears to be consensus that coverage is not sufficient at this time to demonstrate notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Against Rape

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)

This organization doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ORG and importantly WP:NGO. Out of 16 sources listed:

6 don't mention the organization
3 are pure listings
3 are primary sources like org's Instagram page, declared press release article, organization written article in user-generated content website
2 are same articles or sourced from same agency (TNN)
The last 2 sources cover the cycling event organized and have 1 line each about the organization.

These sources don't provide significant coverage of the organization. Outside these sources also, there is nothing to indicate significant coverage and hence notability. Also entire page is written in PROMO style with a number of claims and works going uncited. Roller26 (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added valid references to this page from News18 India, Dainik Bhaskar and other news sources, still there is significant coverage of this topic, the organization is involved in multiple notable events like cycle campaign(most notable). I understand there are some sections which does not cite any sources, I think if no source is found we should simply remove those sections from WP but keep this article since it is more than just a dictionary definition. This article qualifies requirements for WP:ORG. Their are many celebrities linked with cases given by them to National Commission for Women which is also notable. Thank you -- Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - the keep vote above is from the article's creator -- Roller26 (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've cleaned up the article a bit (and have removed uncited parts). It needs work but meets notability requirements. The creator is new to wikipedia and I hope will learn the ropes quickly, we met at peer review. For me this passes WP:NGO and the "three best links" I would offer would be Times of India, The Indianness and Patrika. Mujinga (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga, appreciate you mentoring a new user and showing them the ropes of WP. The above article is existentially dealing with 4 things : its founder Piyush Monga, cycle campaign, campaign of Youth Against Rape (YAR) and the NGO Youth Against Injustice Foundation (YAIF). The basic problem is what is the main thrust of the article and what is meeting the WP:GNG criteria. Both the earlier (pre-AfD tagged version) and later version (post-AfD tagged version) are seamlessly mixing all 4 parts in the article without making a clear distinction. For eg, the later added Controversy Section has nothing do with YAR or YAIF. Essentially in the article and in all the 5 sources added it seems to be the work of Yogita Bhayana from People Against Rape in India. Piyush Monga is just of one of the named parties in the defamation case, and I am not sure how that is relevant in the page of YAR (As we have to differentiate the campaign and organization from its founder). The three best links you provided me, essentially talk about the cycle campaign and make a passing reference to Youth Against Rape, which does not add up to significant coverage of Youth Against Rape (I also doubt that theindianness.com will qualify as Reliable source). The cycle campaign may qualify for WP:GNG but Youth Against Rape (or Piyush Moonga or YAIF) certainty don't at this stage. -- Roller26 (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we don't need separate pages for YAIF (the NGO), YAR (a part of the NGO), Piyush Monga (founder of the NGO) and the cycle campaign (the most publicised part of the NGO's activity), so it's prob best to collec all the information on the one page. Mujinga (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NORG and also lacks substantial coverage about the subject. Passing mentions and off-topic content does not count. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have difficulty with references beyond the cycle campaign to establish WP:GNG. In spite of efforts to save this page - laudatory this campaign and efforts are - there is insufficient notablity. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Padavalam ► 16:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable organization which has sure attracted some coverage but it is currently trivial. killer bee  14:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

::@K6bee9 Please clear what are you exactly referring to, WP:ORGDEPTH? For that I've added references in article please check them. You also used the word currently, if it is in the sense it does not qualify notability now and does earlier, please read WP:NTEMP. Thank you -- Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Note: this user is blocked for socking.[reply]

*Keep per WP:ORG, WP:NGO and WP:GNG. I came in search of this page and found this deletion discussion. I think there are enough sources to meet Wikipedia GNG I read all the comments and I think there were low sources earlier, but now I checked there are 31 sources out of which about 10 clearly are media coverage of bicycle tour. Zerreat (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC) Note: this user is blocked for socking.[reply]

Note - Zerreat got blocked due to being a sockpuppet of Pratyush.shrivastava Roller26 (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zerreat, the issue with the article is though the cycle campaign has received coverage, The page's title is Youth against Rape which has not received significant coverage. The page in current form was mostly edited, cleaned and lot of references were added after the AfD tag on 30-August. It still has only 86 words in the total article of 359 words (in readable prose) amounting to less than 25% coverage for the cycle campaign. The article doesn't differentiate between its founder Piyush Monga, cycle campaign, campaign of Youth Against Rape (YAR) and the NGO Youth Against Injustice Foundation (YAIF) and covers all of them equally instead of passing mentions. The three other topics are clearly non-notable. I also doubt the notability of the cycle campaign for a stand alone article as per WP:EVENTCRITERIA as lot of sources are essentially the same PR article. Roller26 (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main title for bicycle ride would also be Youth Against Rape. The content is also good, I don't have much idea about older version but currently this article seems to be very clear about each aspect as you mentioned them. As I checked article, we just have very little details of NGO which is quite good and acceptable. I also don't think founder Piyush Monga is mixed somewhere in this article as this is all about Youth Against Rape and he is just a name in this. Zerreat (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zerreat, The entire infobox with significant information is about the NGO. Its founder Piyush Monga is involved in a controversy covers the statement in the leading paragraph and section of its own. The idea of the NGO and its history covers more than half the section of the History section. So the only thing that you claim is notable (which I dispute under WP:EVENTCRITERIA) gets one statement in leading paragraph and less then half the content in History Section, equating to less then 25% coverage as per readable prose. Roller26 (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roller26, I'll add some sources from hindi result (if it is allowed in Wikipedia), please check it for me and help me aligning them. I would also like to add the details of their tree plantation and their demands from those sources, can you please help me with that? I would be highly obliged. Zerreat (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zerreat, sources from all language are allowed in English Wikipedia. Be bold and add these sources, in case any further formatting is required someone else or I can help with that. Roller26 (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poor quality evidence for establishing notability. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the efforts to save the article, it is becoming clear that there isn't enough in-depth coverage from reliable third party sources; some topics just don't have the potential to meet GNG. Maybe in the future there will be enough coverage to create this again. Spiderone 21:34, 14 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. Tone 07:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Anna of Bavaria

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

Looks like deposed monarchy cruft, no sourcing to indicate that she is a notable author. PatGallacher (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I think she's notable enough as author and journalist (though the sources in the article don't really show that). Having an article about her and none about her husband seems about right. —Kusma (t·c) 20:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And move to Anna von Bayern, her real name that she uses as author and journalist. —Kusma (t·c) 13:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as writer/journalist - other languages also have articles about her but not about her husband. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deposed monarchy cruft pure and simple. We do not defer to other language Wikipedias.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know (as for the languages), I was merely elaborating on Kusma's point, that her husband don't have an article. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for the reasons that Kusma mentioned earlier above here. Futurist110 (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic, but where is the deletion log for her husband's Wikipedia article? I can't find it! Futurist110 (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be, that he never had an article in the first place? I don't know..... (but you can find an article about him in Greek if you are realy interested!). Oleryhlolsson (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope; he did. I clearly remember his article even from just a couple of months ago. Futurist110 (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110, digging through the history of d:Q7244150, it was PROD-deleted as Manuel von Bayern. Here's the deletion log. —Kusma (t·c) 08:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Still a notable author. TheodoreIndiana (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The princess may not be notable as a member of the former Bavarian royal family but as stated by Kusma, she seems to be notable as an author. She is also the Chief Corporate Affairs Officer at Coty Inc.[29]. Both factors combined together amount to a certain level of significance. TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm curious why there is so many Weak Keep's when there is virtually no coverage of this person. There should be reviews on Wolfgang Bosbach but I can't see it. I don't see sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV nor multiple reviews to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR scope_creep^Talk 12:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[30], [31], [32], interview about the book. Not super great, but not "virtually no coverage". —Kusma (t·c) 13:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Kusma. She appears to be best known as "Anna von Bayern." pburka (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ interviews do not count towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't !vote twice. pburka (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Johnpacklambert pls stop your "delete bomb" on AfD. Why always do you want to Delete wikipedia articles?, I'm so pity to you! If you do not want to help on AfD, it's Ok but pls be quite! Do not disturb. Your ignorant votes are very damaged on some good article and lost. You did a same mistake (vote twice) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark (2nd nomination). So what is your problem? I apologize please stop.... Hi! Dad (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC),[reply]
    - You do need to apologize for being rude and for defending useless monarchy cruft like this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted in the discussion there is sufficient coverage out there to warrant an article. - dwc lr (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as journalist and writer. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Notable writer. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to her real name, not this pretend one, per Kusma.Smeat75 (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None-notable author with a non-usable title. Typical monarchy fan-cruft. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable writer and position as Chief Corporate Affairs Officer at Coty Inc.. --Richiepip (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, notable as journalist and writer.Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sourcing. Overall coverage and work within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some sources and information to the article. I think there is sufficient evidence that she meets WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 18:21, 13 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Encanto (Disney film)

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

This is a recreation of Draft:Encanto (film). Consensus was reached two months ago that this article is not ready for main space and no new major developments. It still does not meet WP:NFF. It would be advisable to redirect this title to Encanto (film) once the article exists, as it is a logical redirect. BOVINEBOY2008 16:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per argument made by nominator. Also might want to look at the article creator's activity, as they have made some questionable edits. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 17:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I echo TGD's concern. In particular that the creator of the page uploaded the copyrighted movie logo to Commons as part of this. -- Netoholic @ 19:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No start of principal photography for NFF, and draftify isn't an option when it already exists in that space. -2pou (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is still too soon to have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. A lot of films have preparatory work in place before ever getting really underway and end up canceled. My best guess is that the film will be made, and will be notable once it is, but my best guess is not good enough. I have no objection to the concurrent draft, though. TJRC (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable movie. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON. Just because it is being made by Disney does not make it notable. It's still an upcoming film and there are no reliable sources. (Granted, there are reliable sources to upcoming films but not this one.) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:07, 11 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Media Merchants

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:NCORP JMHamo (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 6 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. Clear consensus here that the sources proffered do not establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Scandalous

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

I would expect a 3x Grammy winner to have sources (and coverage) supporting such claims but alas, here we are. The sources in the article are all primary listings and unreliable (lyrics sites, etc...) appears to fail WP:NMUSIC Praxidicae (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi! You need info on Kenny Bartolomei and grammy awards, here it is:

https://djbooth.net/features/2017-11-03-rook-justice-league-interview-beat-break

https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/justice-league/profile/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.U.S.T.I.C.E._League

https://twitter.com/justiceleague?lang=en (their bio says three grammys)

https://www.facebook.com/JusticeLeagueMusic/posts/grammy-award-winning-producers-justice-league-have-released-their-::exclusive-new-/1169075936467410/

https://hiphopnc.com/5179756/j-u-s-t-i-c-e-league-working-on-slaughterhouse-album-video/

https://www.musicxray.com/profiles/8239

http://justiceleaguemusic.com/

If more articles are needed, please let me know. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandalous2005 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean he is a Grammy award winner. Praxidicae (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's proof KENNY BARTOLOMEI is a grammy winner:

https://www.itsarappodcast.com/2017/03/15/the-kenny-bartolomei-episode/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandalous2005 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, unless anyone can come up with a reliable source to prove that the subject has won these awards. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Scandalous2005, your username is very similar to the subject of this AfD discussion: please could you clarify whether you have a connection with him? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't have a connection with him personally. I'm just a fan of his. What about this article on the Grammy website?:

https://www.grammy.com/professional-development/video/justice-league-atlanta-music-scene-close-knit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandalous2005 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here's another video. It's Kenny Bartolomei in the thumbnail. I guess I'm confused at how there's no believe he's won a Grammy when he was with the group until 2018 and they won the Grammy for Mary J. Blige's album in 2006.

https://www.grammy.com/professional-development/video/how-jazz-influenced-justice-league — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandalous2005 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Kenny's name shown as apart of the Grammy winning collective J.U.S.T.I.C.E. League: https://ilovesf2.com/2011/06/07/j-u-s-t-i-c-e-league-for-crooks-castles-summer-2011/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandalous2005 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last article unless I find a much better one. This has his picture with at the forefront with the other two members behind him. It also goes indepth about the Grammy win with Mary J. Blige with comments from Kenny.

https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/behind-the-beat-justice-league-news.23006.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandalous2005 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a photo of Kenny Bartolomei HOLDING his GRAMMY! https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSGnGcNufYP8v1J4NEET872TdplztZsJYtkTw&usqp=CAU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandalous2005 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notability is not inherited: is there any evidence that DJ Scandalous has done anything which might confer individual notability per WP:NMUSICIAN? ~dom Kaos~ (talk)
Comment He appeared on Matt Houston's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Houston_(singer)_ "Racines" album under Sony Music France (https://www.allmusic.com/album/racines-mw0002406658) where you can see the music video "La Gogo" that has an intro from Styles P and Jadakiss of the LOX (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lox), a big rap group (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VR3X529-8U) and has collaborated with Trina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trina), Red Cafe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Caf%C3%A9) and others. You can see the video he's done with them in the "singles" section of this wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandalous2005 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His music spins in the UK. For example, he plays on Switch Radio 107.5FM (https://www.switchradio.co.uk/schedule) and had a live interview on 03 March 2020. Here's the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du2mCLFmRhM

Also, here's a bunch of articles on him:

https://www.indie-spoonful.com/post/dj-scandalous-move-on

http://www.aaamusic.co.uk/2019/09/18/aaa-music-approved-dj-scandalous/

https://inquamag.com/qna-dj-scandalous-reverbnation-winner/

https://www.the360mag.com/dj-scandalous/

https://www.thehypemagazine.com/2018/08/dj-scandalous-releases-quirky-visual-for-his-latest-single-move-on/

http://www.dubcnn.com/interviews/djscandalous/

https://ventsmagazine.com/2018/08/07/interview-dj-scandalous/

Not to mention he was nominated for a Chicago Music Award last year which is sited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandalous2005 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also found he was a songwriter / producer for a song called "The Dark Out of Nowhere" on the Soundtrack of "The Heartbeats" (2017) with Jay Weigel (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5281700/soundtrack). Here's a photo of them during that time. (https://www.instagram.com/p/BF5W1H7FbNC/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandalous2005 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last one: apparently he produced the opener of the Guy's Choice: Perfect 10 on SPIKE TV in 2016 with Jay Weigel too. (https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1060551854011318) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandalous2005 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe you should add the above information to the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirstjen (talk • contribs) 22:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just added the new information to the article. Hopefully this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirstjen (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The above discussion is an awesome act of diversion, with paragraphs of useless blather about how somebody else (K. Bartolomei) won an award. Who cares? DJ Scandalous is under discussion here, and in Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. Some of his works have AllMusic listings but with no reviews or commentary, and he has been listed as present at various events. That does not add up to the "significant" and "independent" coverage requirements at WP:NMUSICIAN. All else to be found, including the many links copied above, are unreliable social media and streaming entries, plus reprinted press releases and friendly intro interviews. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the immense amount of text and evidence posting above, this remains an artist with no RS stating his notability. There is reference to him being a Grammy award winner, but he was part of a production team of a number of people who one the award, it wasn't to him specifically. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I agree completely with the characterisation of these "sources". Reyk _YO! 09:54, 19 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 keep. Nom withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Dee

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

This article has existed for 15 years with zero sourced. I nominated it for proposed deletion which was removed with not any attempt to provide any sourcing. My searches for sources came up with absolutely nothing that was the type of substantial source that would lead to the passing of GNG. Wikipedia needs to stop maintaining these unsourced articles for over a decade John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has been the subject of at least two entries in other encyclopedias: [33], [34]. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of anything that would meet WP:AUTHOR. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Dom Kaos I think appearing in three reference works on American literature (I found another one after I posted and added it to the article) is very strong evidence of WP:AUTHOR #1—regarded as an important figure. Mind explaining why you disagree? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviewed in Kirkus, NY Times, Publishers Weekly, among others. Caro7200 (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings, while he is mentioned in these encyclopedias, neither of them is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. @Caro7200, I assume you're using Encyclopedia.com as the source for your argument, but without being able to read the entire reviews rather than just cherrypicked snippets, it's impossible to evaluate whether they are full reviews or (for example) two-line mentions in roundups of all the month's new releases. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, just a regular Google search. Caro7200 (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Kaos: Respectfully, I find your argument unpersuasive. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of encyclopedias published by reputable publishers like Gale and Palgrave (the publishers of the works I cited), and not all of them will be listed as perennial sources—by reason of space constraints alone. The same goes, of course, for books and journals published by reputable publishers. Rejecting sources simply because they are not listed as perennial sources seems unduly restrictive. For instance, neither the Oxford English Dictionary nor the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography—reference works of impeccable reputation—are listed there either. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that the entry in The Encyclopedia of Murder and Mystery is relevant; individual books don't need to be listed in "perennial sources" to be considered reliable. Ditto The American Police Novel: A History, which appears from the snippets to discuss Dee in multiple places throughout the book. The Kirkus and Publishers Weekly reviews are also helpful. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and stand ready to topic ban the nominator from deletion processes per WP;COMPETENCE. The nominator's statement that "This article has existed for 15 years with zero sourced" is plainly false. Since its creation, the article has been sourced in part to The New York Times "NOTABLE BOOKS OF THE YEAR: 1994", an annual list/article published in the Times Book Review in its first December issue each year (very occasionally on November 30 or December 8). The inclusion of a book on this annotated list also indicates that the book was given a full review in an earlier issue. When the article was created, editors who fetishize forms of citation were not indulged as they are today, and identifying one source and alluding to another was sufficient. When the nominator goes on to say "My searches for sources came up with absolutely nothing" for substantive sources, it's a confession of utter incompetence. The article asserts that this author has been covered in the New York Times and, unsurprisingly, just clicking on the NYT search link immediately turns up multiple reviews of this author's books, an announcement of his selection as a panelist in a New York Historical Society presentation on "Cops and Writers: Cops and Citizens Who Write About Cops", a solid indication of his stature/reputation in his field, and a piece on the effects of the WTC attack on New York crime fiction, where Dee is the first writer quoted. A GBooks search immediately turns up The Encyclopedia of Murder and Mystery, which has a full entry on Dee. The American Police Novel: A History has a mutipage discussion of Dee's work as well as mentions in a more general context. And there's his PW author's page, compiling their reviews of, I think, all his books, [35], as well as the reviews found by other commenters here. Let's be blunt: an honest, competent editor could not have said what this nomination says. And if this nominator isn't ready and willing to withdraw this waste of the communuity's time, it's going to be time to revoke their already-limited editing privileges in this area entirely. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recently-added sources. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Since there is clearly now the sourcing needed to keep the article. When I nominated the article there was no listed reference. Unsourced claims of past coverage do not count as references.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are, as is often the case, talking complete rubbish. The article referred to a specific, identified article in the New York Times. That's a source. There's nothing that requires a source to be in the form of a footnote. If you want to play games like that, you can go start Jeopardy-pedia and stop wasting the community's time here. And you still refuse to explain why didn't perform the simple, obvious task of checking the NYT for coverage, which any competent, good faith editor should have done. Haven't you embarrassed this project enough? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 17:57, 7 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. This can be dealt with by moving the page, which I have done. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Line(Taichung Metro)

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

I am guessing previous prod was contested since the original editor removed it. I went to move the article to Blue Line (Taichung Metro) because of spacing issues on the title of this particular article. That’s when I found out I couldn’t move it because Blue Line (Taichung Metro) already exists which in turn redirects to Taichung BRT. It doesn’t make sense to redirect the article to a redirect which in and of itself is a redirect. BostonMensa (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Speedy move to Blue Line (Taichung Metro) The proposed move target currently redirects to the wrong article (title is about the metro but it's redirecting to the BRT). The only reason the move couldn't be done is that a bot fixed a double redirect. ~~There still might be a justification to delete/redirect per WP:CRYSTAL, but otherwise~~ Filing a technical move request per WP:MOR should resolve this AfD. Jumpytoo Talk 18:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to speedy move. Jumpytoo Talk 20:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above and WP:CSK #1. The nominator is not making a case for the article's deletion, but effectively a request to move the article to the correct title. Qualifying coverage of the proposed Blue Line includes: reporting from Eastern Broadcasting Company (generally reliable), Taiwan News (maybe reliable), and United Daily News, to name a few. -- Dps04 (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really wasn’t trying to make an effective argument for deletion but I will try now. There is this article Blue Line(Taichung Metro) as well as Blue Line (Taichung Metro). The second one existed first. So, I couldn’t move the first article to the second one, appropriate spacing in the title, since an article by that name already exists. When I looked it up, I found it redirected to another article. So, to me, it doesn’t make sense to have article a → article b → article c. I have no opinion on whether or not b is appropriately redirected to c because I know nothing about the subject. I simply now I’ve come across pages where there is a comment that someone redirected an article that was involved in multiple redirects. I’m saying that the same should happen here. BostonMensa (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't justify deleting the article, just moving it. If the move target already exists there are ways for an administrator to force a move. Jumpytoo Talk 20:06, 9 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 Captain Britain#Captain Britain Corps. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Britain Corps

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PROD removed with the usual meaningless copy-paste rationale by usual mass dePRODDer, so - let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Overly in-depth plot information that lacks the backing of reliable sources and real world information to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a basic summary to Captain Britain. BOZ (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Captain Britain#Captain Britain Corps. I think what's currently there is a sufficient description, and that page already has too much in-universe information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Captain Britain#Captain Britain Corps - That section in the main topic already has a description of what it is as well as the prominent members, and that is pretty much all that needs to be covered there. Rorshacma (talk) 02:29, 7 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George H. B. Atherton

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

"son of a successful American businessman, trader and landowner" (notability is not inherited). Married Gertrude Atherton, again "notability is not inherited". Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 14:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, unless the author of the article can come up with some reason for his notability. The fact that he was the son of a successful businessperson is not notable in itself. We need some indication that he was a notable person.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill name dropping cutesieness. Graywalls (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Nika2020 (talk) 20:42, 7 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 14:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belmopan Baptist Church

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. WP:BEFORE showed no WP:SIGCOV that addresses the topic directly and in detail // Timothy :: talk 06:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of churches in Belize. † Encyclopædius 06:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:NORG. I'd say this qualifies as an A7 candidate. List of churches in Belize is a list of notable churches, which this is not. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is way below what we would need to show a congregation as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wish we could find more on this, but as it is it fails notability. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:36, 8 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 16:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bahador Zamani

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

Non notable actor with no in-depth courage in RS. Fails to satisfy WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. The draft Draft:Bahador Zamani was declined and then rejected at AfC, however the page creator managed to bypass the review process. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 21 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, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only thing I could find was a namedrop in [36], and there's no apparent equivalent in the Farsi WP. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:45, 13 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Anthology

AfDs for this article:

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

Local cause oriented organization that does not satisfy WP:NORG. It's under the purview of NORG, because it is a "group of more than one person formed together for a purpose." proof that it's group of more than one person. To be kept, an organization page must satisfy WP:ORGCRIT with consideration given to audience base beyond "media of limited interest and circulation". Oregon Arts Watch or Willamette Week don't pass the audience criteria. The previous AfD argument did not address the concerns of limited circulation. Graywalls (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NORG applies, as per nom. -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 6 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 14:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail Inspirational Woman of the Year

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

No evidence of notability of this award. The Daily Mail is a deprecated source, so couldn't be a source of notability for this award in any case. The Daily Mail is notable, but notability isn't inherited. Third party coverage is near-nonexistent - a PROD was removed claiming WP:BEFORE wasn't done properly, but I did, and what little third-party coverage is local papers mentioning local people. The claim that this award was continued as the Lorraine Kelly award of the same name fails verification. If there's evidence this Daily Mail award passes WP:GNG, I certainly can't find it, and the editor who removed the PROD hasn't provided it when challenged on it - see talk. David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, The Daily Mail is a deprecated source --Devokewater (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Daily Mail may be a deprecated source, but it can still be used (cautiously) as a primary source, as it is in this article to cite each year's winner. However we still need independent sources to establish notability. Even if the Mail were reliable, it wouldn't be independent on this topic. pburka (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- precisely - if this were, say a Guardian award with this little evidence of third-party notability, it wouldn't be notable either. I'm not sure there's even enough evidence here to note this in Daily Mail - David Gerard (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Award solely exists for circular publicity purposes that isn't cited by another media organization; even if this was for another newspaper/electronic org that wasn't deprecated, we'd probably still delete it too as unnotable (see the "Best of the (region)" awards commonly handed out by Gannett newspapers in the United States, which are equivalent honors given to local businesses). Nate • (chatter) 16:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even noteworthy enough to be mentioned on the Daily Mail article. Who were the winners after 2010? In 2019 they suddenly woke up again and decided to rename and restart the award? - hako9 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Award effort by the daily mail with nothing to establish notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:03, 13 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Oladipupo

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted 9 months ago per AfD/Isaac Oladipupo - The sources do not add anything towards GNG. Comments please. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 13:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 13:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 13:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 13:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. I found [37], but I don't think it confers notability. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree w/ AleatoryPonderings. If there is any geography specific sources that we are not able to acess just by secondary searches, and if someone can surface them, I would be willing to take a relook. But, as it stands, this might have to be deleted. Also, just had a look at the previous nomination that ended up with a Delete. Seems like nothing has changed since then. Ktin (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt as per nom and above comments. Roller26 (talk) 13:46, 7 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) 07:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Kidderminster Harriers F.C. season

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

No idea why this has an article and none of their other non-league seasons do; clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Spiderone 12:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 11:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, failing Nseasons, and GNG. Govvy (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with others --FootyMessi9147 (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC) — FootyMessi9147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maximon (particle)

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

This article and its twin Minimon fail notability. It seems to be a pet theory of M.A. Markov that wasn't taken up by the scientific community. I went through the references in Maximon; Reference 1 is an article by Markov himself inside a collection. Reference 2 has two articles by other authors, but they simply quote Markov about his own work. I can't access Reference 3, but it seems to be the proceedings of a conference on astronautics. Reference 4 is in Russian, and Reference 5 is Markov's original article. In the Minimon article References 1 to 3 are all the same paper by Markov, and Reference 4 is the same article in Russian.

The original article only has 9 citations according to Google Scholar [38]. This is nothing in particle physics. Tercer (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Not every hypothetical particle needs an article, and these don't meet the wiki-notability bar. XOR'easter (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per XOR'easter's comment. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:38, 7 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. Tone 13:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Webb (medical physicist)

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

The subject of the article has made it known that he is unhappy with the way the article has been edited and he would now prefer it to be deleted. LynwoodF (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LynwoodF (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears from just a quick overview to be noteable. Amortias (T)(C) 11:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, but the article could do with a trim. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding subject requests to delete a page, see WP:BIODEL and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citation numbers clearly fulfill WP:NACADEMIC. Deleting per request is not a thing when the subject is this notable. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 20:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does seem to be sufficiently notable. The subject can request alterations to the article if need be on the talk page. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do we have a clue what his objections are? It seems like a fine, if short, article. Hobit (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit, Prof. Webb was reasonably happy with the article as it was for a few years, but more recently some material has been removed, probably with the intention of wikifying the article, and he feels it does not do him justice. LynwoodF (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing your 2014 version with the version just befoe the AFD [39] indicates very modest changes indeed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously consider deletion. I sympathize with the subject if he wishes the article to be deleted, because this is not a very good way to present the career of an academic. The "awards" section clearly constitutes undue weight; those should all be mentioned in a single sentence. The personal information is all cited to an article that is no longer available from the source. Remove all that and there isn't much of an article. I agree that Dr. Webb is notable, and a decent article could be written based mostly on his publications and scientific citations of his work, but this is not that article. If it is kept it should be reduced to what is cited to available sources, which is basically the first two sentences, one sentence stating that he is former editor-in-chief of Physics in Medicine and Biology (but is not currently as the article states), and one sentence summarizing the awards. blameless 02:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have rather drastically trimmed the article much as suggested in Blameless' comment. It would be helpful to know whether Dr. Webb objects to the article's existence or only to its contents. XOR'easter (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this trim looks good to me. I have added the Barclay Medal which was the only major thing missing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter, Prof. Webb is not entirely opposed to the existence of an article, but felt that the article as it was when he asked me to request deletion did not do him justice. I am not a physicist and do not know my way round the literature of the discipline, but I am aware of his work on radiation therapy, including intensity-modulated and image-guided radiotherapies. Some of the sources cited seem to have disappeared, but I wondered if we could at least put the awards into the infobox. Perhaps there is a scientist among you who would know what is regarded as customary in this area. LynwoodF (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Including the awards would be within normal practice so I have added them. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Prof. Jones. LynwoodF (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reading current recent versions of the article, I believe this person is notable and that this encyclopedia should have an article about him among its 6,155,387 (at this moment) articles. Discussion about what content should be included or excluded should take place at the article talk page. I tend to favor more lengthy and detailed biographies (within reason) if the content is well-referenced. If notability was borderline and the article was an ongoing target of defamation, I might come to a different conclusion, but that does not seem to be the case here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid reason offered for deletion of article on this notable subject. We can discuss improvements and criticism on the talk page of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The original reason for deleting the article is in fact not valid (the subject wants it deleted) - I can't see any other reason to delete it, and the subject seems notable, considering his publishing record and awards, so I think its fine. I do hope Mr Webb is happy with it, and its good he contacted us to suggest improvements. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:12, 13 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) 07:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Cork City F.C. season

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

Issues with WP:GNG, WP:NSEASONS and WP:NOTSTATS.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 11:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of NSEASONS --FootyMessi9147 (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC) — FootyMessi9147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peechha Karo

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability for 2 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI should have AFD'd this myself, but gave them too much time to sort it it, and then forgot about it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 11:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to show notability, IDMB is generally not a good source. Ravensfire (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page follows many other pages that I have been observing in the last few weeks (and perhaps before that as well), of Indian films from the 1950-1980s, that have been showing up for deletion. By the current rules of WP:NFILM, they all fall short of the requirements, primarily because of the lack of English language online sources of reviews for these films, resulting in an undue number of films from the 1990s. This should be a topic of discussion for one of the India Projects, to think through at an aggregate rather than discussing each of the films on a one on one basis in an AfD. I agree with the high level sentiment that Wikipedia is not IMDB. However, in the same vein, Wikipedia is not just a replication avenue other recent online sources (read as recent newspapers). Ktin (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We literally cannot justify keeping an article that lacks any reliable sourcing. These are individual articles on indivdual films and should be discussed individually. There are no requirements for either language or median of existence for sources. If Ktin can find any sources by any method that have relvance to this article, he is free to add them and then mention them in the discussion. Wikipedia does not keep articles just because there might be sources, we need to clearly show the sources exist. Ktin has failed to show sources exist in any way. We need an end to proceduralist defence of junk stub articles like this being on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its been tagged for 2 years, that should have been enough time if there were any.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only two years? I didn't know we ever acted on anything tagged under 5. OK, 2 years is way more than enough time. We are still suffering from the free-for all, Wild West, unregulated growth conditions that prevailed in Wikipedia in the earliest years, at least through 2006, and in many ways until 2010 and even a little later.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion about older Indian films at AFD here that kinda gets into the difficulty to find sources. I've found one site that seems to have at least the basics on older files here, but it's user-driven, like the old IMDB and isn't really a good source for notability. Hollywood films have good print resources for older films, but those aren't easy to find for Indian films. Sadly, you're going to find a lot of well-intended but woefully undersourced articles on older Indian films. Ravensfire (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found and added a review from 2018 - still not enough to get over NFILM, but there at least one source now. Ravensfire (talk) 17:29, 10 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) 07:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Dundalk F.C. season

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

There are numerous Dundalk articles that probably all need deleting. I'll stick to these four to start with. All have issues with WP:GNG, WP:NSEASONS and WP:NOTSTATS.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS here. HawkAussie (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 11:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with others --FootyMessi9147 (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC) — FootyMessi9147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DVDA (band)

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

Another non-notable band! GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band. Even though it has two notable members, who are none other than the creators of South Park and Team America: World Police themselves, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, and they released their albums on major labels, I don't think their band is notable for its own article, based on the sourcing. The sourcing in the article seems reliable at first, but I clicked on the NYT article and it took me to the movie review page of NYT - so that's crossed out. The other one shows a 404 error message for me (in Chinese for some reason). I did a Google search and I couldn't find anything other than the usual junk sites like Bandcamp, Wikipedia mirrors, South Park fandom wiki, Bands in Town, Amazon and forums (the rest of the results aren't connected to the band as usual). I also tried searching with "DVDA Trey Parker" but the results were even more abysmal as the results are about Parker himself and the band only gets mentioned as part of his biography, the sites that are actually about the band are the same ones I mentioned above, with all of them copying the biography from Wikipedia. I don't mind a redirect but I think the band is not notable for its own article. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2007-04 Double vaginal, double anal delete, 2006-04 Double vaginal, double anal ✓ keep, no consensus

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enough coverage for keep Tone 13:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Claude of Orléans

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

Monarchy in France and Italy now abolished, article is mostly routine genealogy or trivia. PatGallacher (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced. Besides the matter of her marriages covered in the article (which seem notable enough given the special circumstances) she do also have had a professional life in various branches. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced. Career outside royal connections. High profile first marriage and subsequent divorce. --Richiepip (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is well sourced and clearly shows notability. The fact the French and Italian monarchies are abolished is completely irrelevant, even members of reigning families are not necessarily notable. - dwc lr (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is fraudulent, she isn't a princess. Smeat75 (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She *is* a princess, of one of the two pretending French Royal family, the House of Orléans RS covreage, including the New York Times. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above and The New York Times reported her about as well. VocalIndia (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage sufficient. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:46, 13 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) 07:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Galway United F.C. season

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

Clear failure of WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 11:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ' I agree with others --FootyMessi9147 (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC) — FootyMessi9147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2012 FC Istiklol season

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

I can't see any evidence that the Tajik league is fully pro so looks to fail WP:NSEASONS; also can't see WP:GNG being met and so all that is left is non-notable statistics. Spiderone 10:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 11:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with others --FootyMessi9147 (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC) — FootyMessi9147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2011 FC Nasaf season

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

All fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 11:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with others --FootyMessi9147 (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC) — FootyMessi9147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2006–07 FK Rudar Pljevlja season

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the Montenegrin leagues are not professional. I can't see any of these passing WP:GNG either.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 11:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' agree with ithers --FootyMessi9147 (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC) — FootyMessi9147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peachtree Baptist Church (Atlanta)

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

Per WP:BEFORE source searches, this church does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Only finding fleeting passing mentions in reliable sources; no significant coverage appears to exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this 14 year old article on a small liberal baptist congregation has no sourcing outside of the organization itself. Wikipedia needs to be built on 3rd-party coverage. That is the very nature of Wikipedia covering only topics that people have found to be notable, not every baptist congregation is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's something to merge into per WP:BRANCH. Graywalls (talk) 23:08, 10 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 13:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishan Singh (soldier)

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Yet another article about a non-notable Indian soldier created by blocked User:Siddsg Mztourist (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails SOLDIER by rank and top award. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Personal opinion, yes, but I would consider that being a recipient of the MVC, MC and OBI is sufficient for notability. This is unusually highly decorated even without a second-level gallantry award. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I am flexible about this stuff, but really, these others are third-ranked awards at best (and probably the OBI is on the lower tier of third-level). I am not keen on encouraging mission-creep from the one first-level or two second-level awards in SOLDIER. This would be equivalent to a British Army captain with a DSO and MC & Bar being presumed notable, and I don't think we want to go there given there have been 16,000 DSOs handed out, and there will be hundreds with additional third-level awards. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Three second- and third-level gallantry awards is pretty unusual in the Commonwealth. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One second-level award and a rank of subedar (captain) fail SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 7 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shaista Usta

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)

WP:BEFORE has shown no significant coverage on her. Actually, no coverage at all in IRS. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Less Unless (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 09:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There isn't enough out there. EverybodyEdits (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything about her sadly Spiderone 10:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Certainly not notable, can't find any significant coverage on her. - Roller26 (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Found some info about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.59.119.174 (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@39.59.119.174:, next time do not delete Spiderone and mine !votes. Roller26 (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source anyway Spiderone 13:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Using normal search resources, there is nothing out there for this actress. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No effective referencing. scope_creep^Talk 12:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Keep-There is information out there about the actress.https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/topic/498725
Keep-Many literary publications out there of the actress before internet actually became a thing.MOVIE magazine India 1997 on the cover with Shahrukh Khan, Aaamir Khan, and actress RekhaScreen magazine UK-"Shooting Stars."Audrey magazine US, Los Angeles"Romancing with life"-Dev Anand Autobiography pgs.329-344 Penguin/Viking Publishing UK,Atlanta Journal and Constitution-"Norcross Teenager on her way to Indian movie stardom." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C9:C003:6690:20D0:549:3E86:A128 (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Main Solah Baras Ki press Lehren.https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9z52y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C9:C003:6690:292A:7DF1:266D:44E0 (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Naveketan Films.http://www.navketanfilms.com/nostalgia/31.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C9:C003:6690:A11F:2D4C:E671:4E1F (talk) 23:32, 12 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 13:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kinderhilfe-Nepal

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

Can not find the sources to establish notability. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia needs 3rd party sourcing, not just sourcing to the subject of an article's own publications.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 7 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 13:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvapriya Sangwan

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:JOURNALIST Angus¹⁹⁸⁶ TALK 08:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the subject has received one of the most prestigious awards in India (Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards, there is hardly any source covering her in detail. It's WP:TOOSOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Less Unless (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete Ramnath Goenka Awards are notable awards for Indian journalists, but the subject doesn't pass GNG and WP:JOURNALIST yet. - hako9 (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 10:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Journalist definitely doing good work in pursuit of truth in an environment where it has become very hard to do so. But agree with above that it is WP:TOOSOON, hope she passes GNG in a few years. Roller26 (talk) 15:15, 11 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) 07:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mamadou Kane

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, fails WP:GNG. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 09:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable --FootyMessi9147 (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC) — FootyMessi9147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 04:47, 10 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 13:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Noorani

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

A non-notable journalist. All the references in the article are based on one event only (recent attack on the subject). Fails WP:GNG. Zoodino (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every journalist who gets attacked automatically becomes notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 7 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 13:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pandurang Salunkhe

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

Doesn't meet the WP:SOLDIER, as the MVC is a second tier award and is awarded only once to the subject. Also fails WP:GNG. Recreated after PROD. Zoodino (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:23, 6 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. Michig (talk) 07:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tors Peerson

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

Does not meet WP:GNG: references do not mention the subject, and subject's name appears to be an anagram of "storeperson", so probable hoax. Deus et lex (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Deus et lex (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it is genuine, there's no evidence of notability. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence it is genuine - no mention in reliable sources about Walker or Callister, contains no sources. --Find bruce (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Only hits are WP mirrors. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Signs point to hoax – all content written by two accounts with similar names which have made no other edits; article is garnished with a few scant citations to look like it is referenced, but which don't refer to the subject at all, just some shipping news; no references to the subject found elsewhere other than WP mirrors; anagram of the name to occupation is suspicious (or a case of nominative determinism?). --Canley (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BASIC, article sources do not actually back what is stated about Peerson, nothing found to even prove existance of this person, let alone they being wikinotable. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Nika2020 (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Likely hoax, even if subject existed, no evidence of notability. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:03, 9 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no delete !votes. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Montgomery Garmadon

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

This page has one source, is filled with Wikia-style info such as personality and appearance, and the description about Lloyd on the “characters” section on the Ninjago page is sufficient enough. As somebody who really likes this show, I don’t think this page is written well for Wikipedia standards, or even for the character’s standard (he isn’t even referred to by his middle name that much, and there is no info at all about the movie) At this point, with all of its problems, the best thing to do is to delete the article. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:02, 6 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lloyd is the main character of a successful television and film franchise, and is discussed in reliable sources. "Dave Franco Cried Uncontrollably Filming The Lego Ninjago Movie" (CinemaBlend, 2017) discusses the voice actor's creative process, ditto "Dave Franco on Getting Heroic for The Lego Ninjago Movie" (Parade, 2017) and "Dave Franco brings creative flow to ‘LEGO Ninjago’" (Boston Herald, 2017). I agree with the nominator that the article is in very poor shape, but WP:ARTN says that notability is based on the subject, not the current condition of the article. The problems can be fixed through normal editing, taking out the unnecessary and unsourced content, adding more real-world information and renaming the page. It does not require deletion. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this convinced me of a good reason to simply rewrite this page, rather than to delete it. I don’t have the time to rewrite it myself, but perhaps somebody who has seen more than the movie and the first 2 seasons can help me rewrite it? Also, I couldn’t find those sources myself when googling the character, so if content from the movie is added, those sources could be added as well? Thanks. Unnamed anon (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool; I can add a bit. If you want to withdraw the nomination, I think it helps if you say "withdraw" in bold. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Withdraw’ Unnamed anon (talk) 22:49, 6 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. Michig (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balaji (actor)

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

This page was previously deleted under the title of Thadi Balaji. Not notable since then. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Already deleted two times via Afd and should probably be deleted under WP:G4. I don't see any substantial change in the article.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it was deleted under a previous discussion, then Speedy Delete under G4. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Foxnpichu: Yes, it was deleted twice through AfD discussion [40][41] and was also protected from being created. Therefore the creator used another name. I think it's possibly a COI as well--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG criteria -- Padavalam ► 16:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the delete nomination, and past actions. Should not have come this far. Ktin (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with previous editors. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:55, 13 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 13:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agim Ibishi

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

This appears to be an early-career scientist with no claim to any of the WP:NPROF criteria - I can't even manage to get an overall citation count; his database presence is too spotty, presumably because the output consists almost entirely of conference proceedings. Unless there's a surprise light hiding under a bushel somewhere, there's no chance at a notability pass here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any evidence to warrant notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If I'd come across the page and it wasn't already up for AfD I might even have gone for CSD A7. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of WP:NPROF, and no other assertion or sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely self-sourced; he has one uncited publication listed in Google scholar. Far from WP:PROF and no other claim to notability is apparent. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete . He has a high – quality scientific references.

There are links that proof that he has published high -quality scientific articles. The user Elmidae has no arguments! He(Elmidae) is pretending that he is an ecologist but he is not! The truth is that the user Elmidae has just personal reasons. There is enough evidence. Have read references. These are very credible high – quality scientific references from USA, France, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands and other countries around the world. All of you who are against: just read these references, then you will understand that these references are the proof. Or maybe you are not able to understand these references because you are not competent in this field. How you dear then to try to blame a scientist when you are not competent. To: David Eppstein not one publication listed in Google scholar but more than 30. Have check. He has also many high – quality publications not listed here on Wikipedia because this article about him is a new article, and it will be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Van Vlanderen (talk • contribs) 15:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, he's on to me. And here I thought the Inconspicuous Scientist cover would hold for a while longer while I pursue my personal vendetta... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Van Vlanderen, Please could you post the link to Google Scholar showing the publications? I admit I struggled to find it. Thank you. Having publications isn't sufficent to be notable, independant recognition is needed. Please take a look at WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. He is a scientist. This page is interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justine2020 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC) — Justine2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jim_Van_Vlanderen. Spicy (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE . He is a European scientist. He has a references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YourTeacher2020 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC) — YourTeacher2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jim_Van_Vlanderen. Spicy (talk) 01:02, 8 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 13:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Lam

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a local school board commissioner, not reliably sourced well enough to be deemed notable for this. School board trustees or commissioners are not a level of office that is considered "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL -- to be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, a person at this level of significance has to show credible evidence that she's much more notable than the norm, by virtue of having nationalizing coverage that significantly exceeds just what every school board member can always show in their own local media. But there are just 14 footnotes here, and more than half of them are primary sources (self-published content on the school board's own website) or WordPress blogs that are not support for notability at all -- there are only six cites to real media here, which is not nearly enough coverage to deem her more special than other school board trustees, as literally every school board trustee on earth can show six hits of local media coverage. (Note: first deletion discussion is not relevant at all, as it pertains to a different person who merely happened to have the same name.) Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There's no real evidence of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. FYI, this is the second nomination for an article with this title. The first nomination appears to have been about a different person and the page was deleted. pburka (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her positions do not give default notability and the coverage is not enough to show notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 9 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 13:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Clark (guitar player)

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

BLP with no sources that makes no claim to notability. WP:BEFORE turned up no sources that demonstrate notability. Paisarepa (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The articles just says he exists and nothing else. Shows there is nothing you can write about regarding this guy. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A fifteen year old article which never seems to have been referenced to more than a few External Links to notices and a now defunct website. Searches find this 1999 article by the subject but I am not seeing the coverage which can establish notability whether by WP:MUSICBIO or WP:JOURNALIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article lacks the sourcing to justify an article. Wikipedia has no grandfather clause, we apply current sourcing and notability requirements to articles, we do not grandfather them in past requirements. This article clearly fails our current requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 7 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 Venom (Marvel Comics character). Tone 13:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Venom

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

Given that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Iron Man was just closed as redirect and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Black Canary as outright delete, can anyone figure out if there is anything to rescue in this content fork/mutated disambig/list/whatever the hell those 'alternate version' articles are? As usual, content is 95% plot and 5% appearances, sourced in 99% to PRIMARY sources. Oh and just in case "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTNOTABLE - A better question would be why you are assuming that every "Alternate version" article you come across is automatically not notable by definition. Comic book characters usually go through multiple iterations, so "Other versions" sections are standard. Sometimes when the topic cannot be feasibly covered in the main article because of length (especially with more popular or prolific characters), it is split into a separate article similar to the "In other media" sections. See Joker in other media, for example.

Now, you could make a case that specific Alternate Versions articles are not notable, either because the content can be reasonably condensed into the main article or because most of the examples are incredibly minor, one-off appearances, or lack coverage. But that's not what you and TTN are doing.

By your own admission, you are indiscriminately nominating every Alternate Versions article you come across, so most of these are going to have to be rediscussed at some point anyway. For that reason, I'm going to have to vote Keep until deletion procedure is properly followed. In fact, at least of one of them (Alternate versions of Batman) actually does pass WP:GNG. Dark knight 2149 04:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Some of them are indeed notable. Superman, Batman, Robin, Wolverine and Spider-Man for example. Especially Spider-Man. We have a film to prove that. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just like Spider-Verse, there was a Venomverse which went through significant coverage of the crossover storyline. So I feel this one is fine to stay. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 11:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a basic summary to Venom (Marvel Comics character). BOZ (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as Alternative versions of Spider-Man is deemed to stay notable. That’s all that mainly matters to me. Some alternative versions have significant characters that redirect to alternative versions like in that article. So be weary. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as mostly plot summary that could still be preserved. Archrogue (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how any of this is preservable, as it's WP:ALLPLOT. However, if there is usable information in the article then Merge to Venom's main article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a pure plot summary containment article lacking any real world information from reliable sources. It is not a valid article split because plot is condensed if it's too large, not split out. List of Venom titles is adequate if you want to link to the various interpretations, assuming each interpretation's series is notable enough for an article. TTN (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of value worth keeping Spiderone 10:11, 11 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. Michig (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Tell Mom

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

This article manages the impressive feat of having not a single source that even mentions the company by (either) name. As far as coasting on inherited, or rather vaguely associated, notability goes it's a good try, but it's not coming close to meeting any applicable notability guideline. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd argue for a redirect to ABC Signature (the individual's producing studio), but it's downright pointless. He has two shows, that's it, and it's just a non-notable vanity card otherwise. Nate • (chatter) 16:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the company was created for administrative purposes and someone like Jason Richman would 99.9% of the time engage under his name rather than a company of which he is the sole associate. That's why one probably won't find this company anywhere except in legal documents, which we generally won't have access to, nor would serve as the basis for an article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, no references, fails GNG/NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 13:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability, clear GNG/NCORP fail. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nowhere near passing WP:GNG. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS here of note Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:57, 13 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 13:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teja Sajja

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

This actor is not notable and no sources can be found that explain his career as a child artist. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TOOSOON. Subject does not have enough signifcant roles in multiple notable films to qualify WP:NACTOR. Ab207 (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can someone knowledgeable about the topic look at the movies that have been listed to see if these are mainstream movies? If these are mainstream movies, I would lean towards a keep, with a note to clean the article. Currently the article has a lot of WP:PROMO and WP:PUFF going on. Ktin (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes. They are mainstream movies.TamilMirchi (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror. This applies doubly for articles on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 7 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 13:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KGUBrass

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. No indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 01:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- notability not established, WP:NOTPROMO. 1292simon (talk) 02:58, 6 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 13:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Davidson

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

Local/regional political operative fails WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 00:53, 6 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, as noted by the nominator. Google, NYT, JSTOR, ProQuest and Gale did not find results to confirm WP:N. He's a local politician who hasn't recieved sufficient coverage to warrent an article. Z1720 (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perennial local election loser, not a notable person. Reywas92^Talk 03:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being local or regional chair of a political party's local or regional chapter is not an inherently notable role per WP:NPOL, and being an unsuccessful candidate for political office isn't notable either — to get an article for either of these reasons, he would have to show that he was significantly more notable, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance, than most other people who've done the same things. But this is referenced more than 50 per cent to unreliable and primary sources that are not support for notability, and the sources which are real media coverage are just the expected local media coverage that every local political figure can always show, which is not enough in and of itself to make him a special case. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable politician. LefcentrerightDiscuss 13:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete county party chairs are not notable for any party in the US, and state party chairs are not notable for minor parties in the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 9 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 by nominator (non-admin closure) ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aliocha Schneider

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll grant that the article was in a poorly referenced state at the time the nominator tagged it, but per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not necessarily the current quality of the article as written. He has major acting roles that pass WP:NACTOR #1 and passes WP:NMUSIC as a musician, and it literally took me less than ten minutes to find numerous notability-bolstering sources just by typing his name into the magic Google search bar. WP:BEFORE is your friend. Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 03:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I withdraw this nomination per Bearcat's reasoning. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 12:45, 6 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 13:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pavani Gangireddy

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

Couldnt find any sources except for one.^[1] TamilMirchi (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NACTOR. Ab207 (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movies/news/Im-mom-to-a-3-year-old-Pavani-Gangireddy/articleshow/46332713.cms

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

[1] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movies/news/Im-mom-to-a-3-year-old-Pavani-Gangireddy/articleshow/46332713.cms

[1]