Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 14

< 13 March	15 March >

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 delete. Sandstein 08:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comical Turn, Idaho

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

Unable to find even a single mention of this in Google, newspapers.com, GBooks, or anywhere else, much less one that corroborates claim this is a ghost town, other than the title of this video. 1972 topo has it in small sans serif font not used for populated places, matching the Gazetteer’s listing as a locale. Reywas92^Talk 23:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 23:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 23:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to checking Google, newspapers.com and GBooks, I found nothing at all in ProQuest U.S. Newsstream, EBSCO Masterfile and a few other databases. Maybe Comical Turn is a cartography joke, or one of those things that cartographers put in maps to prove a copyright violation? Cxbrx (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spent some time trying to find primary and secondary sources on the community. It's clear that the area exists, but that it exists and little else. Unless further sources appear, this probably should go. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources suggest that this place actually exists? –dlthewave ☎ 04:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign that this was a notable populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 04:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the place exists, nothing so far has suggested that it warrants an article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Resolved - already speedied. Fenix down (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nantawat Suankaeo

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

This article is a duplicate of Nantawat Suankaew with all data identical and refering to the same references Robby (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robby (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blank and convert to a redirect. There is very little standardisation of transliteration from Thai script to to Latin alphabet and most of it is phonetic based generally on the pronunciation of English which has many ways of writing the same or very similar sounds. Perhaps the nominator is not aware of this, The friendly creator, Puan555, is obviously a Thai national and perhaps can be excused for not knowing about the existence of the REDIRECT feature. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G6) as an attempted cut-and-paste move, so the unattributed history is removed. Puan555 has serious competency issues and is seemingly unable to understand simple instructions. I will consider reporting to user problems. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to existing article. Giant Snowman 13:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G6) - and then Redirect. As much as User:Puan555 shouldn't have tried to fix it this way, User:Robby should have not created this AFD, and should have withdrawn it shortly afterwards based on the quick comments. Nfitz (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the existing article per nom. WP:SNOW Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-charting music artists in the United States

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

This was nominated once before over 10 years ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of best-charting U.S. music artists), and I believe the issues raised then are still a concern today. It was kept then because it was new, a work in progress, and a thought that it could be improved.

It's basically a list of acts with the most Hot 100 chart entries while indicating how each act did on various charts. To me, this is WP:OR, WP:IINFO, and a huge expansion of List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones, which already provides a smaller list of acts with the most Hot 100 entries. This list is incomplete, out of date, poorly sourced, unclear inclusion criteria (the Clash are listed with only 3 Hot 100 hits) and cherry picks what other charts are included. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It’s best to track these things at their individual articles, where the info is in a manageable state. Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sergecross. Unclear criteria for inclusion of artists and what data is to be included. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN the list is informational and aides in navigation. The list is not indiscriminate in that it is focussed on (best-charting music artists in the U.S.) Lightburst (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is something as vague as “best-charting” something you consider “focused”? With all of the music and charts in existence? And any of the notable ones already being documented in their own articles? Sergecross73 msg me 23:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a name change is warranted please propose one. Lightburst (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have have a problem with the name, I have a problem with the notion that this article has a focused scope. It’s ridiculously wide. Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTIINFO and WP:NOR. Majority of this content is not verifiable. I also disagree with the previous commentor describing the article as useful for navigation. It's useful for almost nothing. Ajf773 (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I must agree with the WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument, as "best charting" is an unclear term. The list article does not define the term sufficiently nor does it include any criteria for how far the list will go. Under its own design, the only way for this list to make sense is to include every artist who ever charted, and that is both unwieldy and unnecessary. The List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones article does a much better job at a similar task. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Also poorly sourced and lacks any criteria as Metropolitan90 stated. Also due to the long amount of time this article has existed and not been improved. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An interesting (if incomplete) statistical exercise, but it does not pass WP:LISTN. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted on author request. Canley (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Butcher

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

NOT TABLOID. This would do as clear illustration of one of the places where Not tabloid particularly applies--sentimental material about someone totally unimportant otherwise. This is material for a social media site, not an encyclopedia . Most news outlets have always carried this sort of material as a matter of reader interest, but that does not mean that everything in a newspaper is encyclopedic . DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and per WP:BLP1E (which applies to recently deceased individuals as well, in addition to just BLPs). All media coverage exclusively revolves around the letter she wrote. SD0001 (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, per WP:BLP1E, and per WP:NOTNEWS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not going to elaborate, due to the sensistivity of teh topic, but the only two claims of notability do not reach the pretty solid requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ——SN 54129 21:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been speedily deleted by its author. P-K3 (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Request for Comment" from Ritchie333 please. ——SN 54129 10:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bob talk 12:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westbeach

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

~~If this is WP:NOTABLE, I couldn't find any evidence of it. Taking to AfD as aware it was pre-Internet. Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources indicate it exists and was shown for one series cant see why it is not noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTV, which says, "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)." This was a BBC1 show. Also WP:HEY — the article has been improved by MilborneOne. -- Toughpigs (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per above, well-made arguments. Thanks for your valuable input, Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 06:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Augie T.

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

I've been unsure with this one, but couldn't establish that he definitely meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Mainly local coverage. Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem notable. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Augie T. also got press in Guam; I just added a reference from a 2017 article in Guam's Pacific Daily News. Guam and Hawaii are more than 6,000 kilometers apart, so I don't think that counts as "local". :) This is a well-written and well-sourced article. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does not sound like enough if you ask me. Foxnpichu (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toughpigs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has won a significant award so meets WP:ANYBIO. P-K3 (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure a Na Hoku Hanohano Award is "significant" enough? Foxnpichu (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is Hawaii's equivalent of the Grammy Awards, then yes.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:ANYBIO. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Oblivion Society

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so reviews of the book, like the ones cited in the article, and this one from SF Site aren't useable? Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article aren't sufficient to satisfy WP:BK, and I haven't been able to find any other viable sources. I also haven't been able to find any evidence that SF Site has the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" we require of a reliable source. The Gud Magazine review is a better source, but a single source is not sufficient for notability. (I did try and dig up the now-dead Suffolk Voice review and wasn't able to find an archived version, but it did become clear that the Suffolk Voice was a student publication edited by Suffolk University undergraduates, so also not a reliable source.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Lacks the coverage to pass WP:NBOOK. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Park Han Hee

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, only two sources Google returned are from "GayStarNews.com" and Hankyoreh, a English-Korean website. Non notable person. CatcherStorm ^talk 03:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 03:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – a Google search of Park's Korean name turns up additional sources, such as this, this, this, this and this. I won't offer a firm opinion on notability yet, as I'm not fluent in Korean; however, it appears that Park has gained a decent amount of coverage in Korean media. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Bell

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

Non-notable basketball player. Never played close to a high level. Fails WP:NHOOPS. Contested prod. LionMans Account (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources already in the article. On a sidenote, when a player plays the majority of his career in non-english speaking countries, as Bell did, it is highly recommended to search in sources from those countries as a part of WP:BEFORE to prevent WP:BIAS. -- Alvaldi (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with sources in article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Evidently notable, as article shows. Not even a stub, player in non-English leagues is all. Kingsif (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per all above. Non-English sources count, too!! Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't read Icelandic, but most of the sources look more like WP:ROUTINE than actual stuff about him. LionMans Account (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the nominator changed the nomination after people started commenting, adding "Fails WP:NHOOPS". Regardless, failing WP:NHOOPS is irrelevant if the person passes WP:GNG. -- Alvaldi (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except this doesn't meet GNG. Most of the sources seem to be of individual games in low level basketball leagues. Probably the closest is whether his time at Georgetown (a well-known college program) would count or not. However, as mostly a reserve player for two years, probably not. LionMans Account (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 20+ sources in the article, I count four that mostly cover games. Of the others, there are multiple articles covering him specifically, including in the Washington Post and in the two largest newspapers in Iceland at the time, Morgunblaðið and Dagblaðið Vísir. Almost all of the league's he played in where the top-tier leagues of their respective country, including in Argentine where basketball is immensely popular. -- Alvaldi (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies general notability based on the number and quality of cited sources. Naomi.piquette (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zephyr (musical project)

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

No evidence of notability. Page was started in 2008 by user:Zephyrlife7, so a COI issue, who has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. The image used is apparently made by her, and is used in one of the sources given. Article has not been substantially updated since 2008. Sources are either dead links or trivial. Emeraude (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, can't find significant coverage. Polyamorph (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unable to find significant RS. Caro7200 (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Little coverage. Doesn't appear to have charted (at least not significantly). Foxnpichu (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When searching, beware of the notable Zephyr (band) featuring Tommy Bolin. As for this project, I can find one minor review: [1], and that was probably solicited by the group. I can find nothing else on this act beyond their own self-promotional efforts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520 - Oh man. I never thought about that. I still think the page should be deleted regardless. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can be draftified via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 08:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Harris

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Antila333 (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have found several other mentions not included in the article (1, 2, 3), but they don't show the notability per WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. --Less Unless (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Draftify: I don't think WP:NACTOR is the issue here—the subject has had several recurring roles in TV series and had what appears to be a supporting role in The Keeper (2018 film). Sources are a bit scant, however. Should the consensus be to "delete", I would suggest "dratifying" the article. Also, I feel that the nomination of this article was unnecessarily quick—it was nominated just hours after being created. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough indepth sourcing to show notability. I applaud the creator of this nomination. We need an end to the languishing of articles on unnotable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Doesn't currently pass WP:NACTOR, but worth hanging onto in case future roles do. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be consensus for a dash of salt in addition to deletion to stop the disruption. Emeraude believes the subject to be notable, so should anyone want to write a properly sourced article, feel free to contact me to unsalt. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close addendum: I was careless in my language above, and mischaracterised Emeraude's position. To clarify for the record, they noted that the subject would likely be notable if the assertions made in the article could be verified with reliable sources, but that no such sources have been identified. The rest of my closing statement stands, please contact me for unsalt if suitable sources are identified. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hem Raj BC

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

Paid editor created submission from an editor that refused to use AfC as is the normal process per WP:COI. Article is mild to overtly promotional throughtout and the sources used are terrible. Generally I'm not a fan of invoking WP:TNT but honestly the amount of work needed to rework this version of the article far exceeds simply starting from scratch. Possibly an article could be written on this guy, but the existing submission is not it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 10:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I had a go at tidying up the worst of the layout etc last week (see: Draft:Hem Raj BC (director)), but agree that it is a terrible article and excessively promotional. The trouble is, the subject is almost certainly notable, if everything in the article is true, but the sources are so poor that a firm conclusion is not possible. Emeraude (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons why I don't like paid editors is their stubbornness. The article was deleted under G11, draftified for clean-up, the submission was declined, still no improvements and it's back to the mainspace to waste our time. The creator (SPA/CNH) appears to have no interest in following the policies, he was just paid to create this page no matter how. I tried but can't find better sources and the notability of the films he has directed is also doubtful so, delete - salt if notable, someone else will write about it. GSS ^💬 18:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the inconvenience, but i am not actually a paid user but helping a friend. This is my first article and still on the learning phase. I have added more link sources that prove the point that the person is legit and has done all these projects. Please review once more and if their is any chances and suggestions please help me as i am willing to do every steps to make it right. Hope the community will help me.--Hellone69 (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? how about this comment you posted on my talk page? Also, the sources you just added before commenting here are not reliable see WP:RS. GSS ^💬 10:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you weren't paid (which seems unlikely given your previous statement on GSS's talk page) you still have a very clear WP:COI if you are writing about a personal friend. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and salt WP:TNT applies. That's why I went to the trouble of draftifying it once; there was already a duplicate in draftspace that made it necessary to add disambiguator to the title. Now that they've recreated it, that makes it two drafts and one article, all copies. The article can not be marked as reviewed without a lot of work, and I strongly oppose rewarding bad behaviour from paid editors by doing the work for them. What's to stop them from just turning it into a hagiography once the AFD is done, since they have shown already that they have no respect for our COI-related quality control procedures. It's more work than it's worth, and it would set a very bad precedent with regard to our very unhelpfully worded COI policies if we adopt this article. Salt it too, we can unsalt it once we have a draft that an independent editor chooses to accept. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junjun odarbe

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

Purely promotional, no independent sources to establish notability, created by article's own subject Hb1290 (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete obvious A7. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7. Minorax (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Griffin

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

I did a look for reliable published sources on this Kirby Griffin and came up rather short. Doesn't seem to meet our notability requirements. A loose necktie (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’m amazed someone was even able to make an article with such lack of sources out there. I know who she is but for Wikipedia, she does not meet GNG. ⌚️ (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Route accounting

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leaning TNT From what I can see, route accounting is a proper subject, but it only has to do with software because it's the sort of tabulation that computers, after all, were designed to deal with. The article as we have it really doesn't deal with the problem that this software needs to solve, and is constructed largely of generalities about business software packages in general. I would sugfgest that starting over would be a better course. Mangoe (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Screeching Weasel / Born Against

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Several possible redirect targets, but not one clearly more over the others, so suggesting deletion. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Boleyn, how did you determine that it doesn't meet WP:NALBUM? The #1 method of doing so is by appearing in "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and ... independent," and given that this is a 1993 album, most such sources are highly likely to not be online. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence in the article that it meets WP:NALBUM; I could find no evidence that it is notable. You're right to point out it may be somewhere I've no access to, which is why I've taken it to AfD rather than prod. However, we do have to find proof of notability if we keep it. Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 7" records were significant to the punk scene, especially in the early '90s hardcore/pop punk scene. This needs to be reliably sourced, of course. There is also this: [2], which talks about how the punk and riot grrrl scenes interacted, focusing on this record. I'll try to find more. Caro7200 (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added three good refs, will look for more. Caro7200 (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the references added by Caro7200. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Sport Team

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

This article is pretty unwieldy and includes information that probably doesn't need to be aggregated. Many of the broadcasters and pundits who contribute to BBC Sport's coverage do so on a freelance basis, and their hiring and firing is rarely publicised, which leads to us having to use unorthodox and unreliable sources (there are three references to LinkedIn profiles, 28 references to tweets and quite a lot of links to internet forums). Some of the commentators listed don't even work for the BBC, they were simply the commentators on the feed the BBC was using (e.g. the Super Bowl announcers were from whatever broadcaster had the Super Bowl in the US that year, so Fox, CBS, NBC or whatever), and so could hardly be said to be part of the "BBC Sport team". Which brings me onto the article title: is the term "BBC Sport Team" really sufficiently formalised to warrant us using it as the title of this article. I think the fact that we have essentially come up with our own neologism for this fairly unconnected group of people tells all about the importance of this list article. – Pee Jay 21:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's sort of a neologism. BBC sport do refer to themselves by saying "The BBC Sport team", the important part is the lowercase T, They mainly use it as a shorthand way of saying "Everyone here from BBC Sport...". List of BBC Sport commentators and presenters would be somewhere nearer a better tile. - X201 (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I accept that there are cases in here where you may not see them as the predominant team, particularly when a feed is used. The difficult arises in spotting this is the case, especially when I have seen many cases where the presentation team will say over to our commentary team and I believe they are the world feed team. We do also have to note that with the BBC Sport extra online broadcasts ^[1], these content are sometimes actually funded by BBC to broadcast and others they just use an already in place commentary team. However the basis is on those who make up the regular team. I accept that perhaps my edits have expanded who might be counted beyond where makes sense and would accept excluding world feed and making a consideration on the extra online content. I do however, particularly with the ability to see the changes in the main team, by the former section, as an important part to keep as a record and much of it has taken me ages to research. - Gloverhouse (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/41853431

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - The article is mostly a large list. Would WP:TNT be a good idea if the article was kept? Foxnpichu (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails all of WP:LISTPURP, this is just a collection of poorly-sourced people who have been part of a BBC broadcast for a sporting event at some point. There is not a "team" in any sense of the word in evidence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic does not pass WP:LISTN. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Gaynor

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

Does not appear to have significant coverage outside his losing down-ballot race, fails WP:NPOL. Reywas92^Talk 05:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 05:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 05:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage was about the political race which every candidates would have some coverage of such activities but the subject is not an elected politician as he was defeated -see here. Fails WP:NPOL. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is extensive coverage of the guy, meaning that even if he doesn't meet WP:NPOL by virtue of holding office, he probably meets it through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A brief search turned up these among others:

Piecing Together Steve Gaynor

Steve Gaynor, Arizona secretary of state candidate, was accused of underpaying workers

Steve Gaynor: Campaigning to Ensure Better Elections

Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry Endorses Steve Gaynor for Secretary of State

Meet The Candidate: Steve Gaynor

Election 2018 – Interview – Steve Gaynor (R)

Meet the Secretary of State candidates: Steve Gaynor and Katie Hobbs

Steve Gaynor defeats incumbent Michele Reagan for Secretary of State nomination

Steve Gaynor Saved a School, But Upheaval Ensued

Secretary of State candidate seeking to preserve integrity of the office

Jewish candidate could make state history

By the way, calling his a "losing down-ballot race" is a bit misleading, given that a) the Secretary of State of Arizona is the state's #2 elected official, right after the governor, and b) the race was close enough that Gaynor was initially declared the victor. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — but the fact that some campaign coverage exists is not, in and of itself, a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL. Every candidate in every race everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from NPOL on GNG grounds, then every candidate would always be exempted from NPOL on GNG grounds and NPOL would literally never apply to anybody at all anymore. So we have an established consensus that to qualify for an article, a non-winning candidate must either (a) demonstrate that he was already notable enough for other reasons, independently of the candidacy, that he would already have qualified for an article on those other grounds anyway (i.e. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) show such an unusual volume of nationalizing coverage that his candidacy can be credibly claimed as much more special than everybody else's candidacies (i.e. Christine O'Donnell). But neither of those conditions are being shown here, and the links above still aren't making a stronger case that either of them are applicable. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to 2018 Arizona elections#Secretary_of_State. Gaynor is not particularly notable outside of the election. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He lost the race, it does not matter if it was by 1 vote, or 100,000. What makes someone notable is holding a state wide elected office. If he had won the race and been shot the next day or died of COVID-19 before taking office, I would still argue he is not notable. It is actually the power and influence of serving in the office, not being elected to it per se, that makes holders of such offices notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Uncensored Library

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

WP:NOTNEWS, there's no evidence of enduring coverage yet. Fails WP:GNG as well. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It can't have enduring coverage yet if it was announced yesterday. It's getting news coverage and is clearly notable. We can judge if it gets sustained coverage over time; if it fades from public notice, we can delete it later. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Beyond the dedicated coverage in a few video game/tech websites, the fact that it’s getting coverage from National publication unrelated to gaming, like CNN, shows that it does meet the WP:GNG. And this is coming from someone who typically advocated delete for these various Minecraft related things, as I believe most are not independently notable. This ones coverage is different though. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS, a brief Minecraft related gimmick isn't notable. Many organizations have done this type of thing, such as the Danish government with their recreation of Denmark in Minecraft. The Minecraft uncensored library map is something that'll get plenty of coverage over a period of a few days, then will be forgotten about. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:CRYSTAL, a prediction that may or may not come true. We'll see if you're right in time. -- Toughpigs (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We’re not talking about a news event though, we’re talking about a game that was created. There’s a difference, much in the same way that we wouldn’t delete an album article per “NOTNEWS” just because all the album reviews arose within the first few days of release. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, in addition to CNN mentioned above it has been covered by others including La Vanguardia - "Esta gigantesca biblioteca de Minecraft contiene cientos de trabajos periodísticos censurados", and Deutsche Welle - "Kompjutorskom igrom zaobilaze cenzuru na Internetu". Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary, it doesn't need "lasting coverage". If it meets the general notability guidelines now, then it should be kept forever. Dream Focus 16:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep We have before us an article that has gotten a lot of international press for several days but for which WP:SUSTAINED has not been met. The amount of coverage is far above the trifling coverage typical of articles deleted per WP:NOTNEWS, but much less than articles typically kept per WP:RAPID. For the time being, I'm voting keep because of the international coverage and the breadth of coverage of the library. However, if the coverage dies down and it becomes apparent that the library was little more than a novelty, then I think a re-nomination would be appropriate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with solid coverage from multiple journalistic perspectives. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nutticha Namwong

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

non-Notable Youtuber. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course, and I am sorry to bring this up, but I have competency concerns about the creator, บุญพฤทธิ์ ทวนทัย. His/her English is nearly incomprehensible and these articles create work for copyeditors who need to translate them into proper English. This is a burden on our system for diminishing returns. Machine translation is superior to this user's output. Elizium23 (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. [3] is a WP:INTERVIEW. So is [4]. And [5]. [6] is not. She may be notable as a media celebrity, but the sources right now seem on the wrong side of borderline. Ping me if there are more sources or analysis. What is needed is the review or reliability of those sources. Are any of thsose major Thai newspapers or portals? Is her coverage mainstream or niche? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1 is Thai Rath, Thailand number one newspaper. No. 3 (Sanook.com) and 4 are reputable online news site and among the first websites in Thailand. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references above. And also this [7] (former satellite TV and free TV news station, now only online news) says that she is the first Thai youtuber to reach 10M subscriber. Here is some Thai youtube ranking I can find [8] which rank her at number 6 (number 1-5 are TV channels or music companies) --Lerdsuwa (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I threw text from both sources into Google Translate, and while source 5 looks reliable, I am iffy on the status of source 4, which looks very gossip-magaziney. However, I will take Lerdsuwa at their word that 4 is a reliable source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had expected there to be more English-language coverage following her channel being featured in last year's YouTube Rewind,[9] but it's mostly passing mentions. She's featured in this Bangkok Post article[10] (which misspelled her name) and mentioned in The Thaiger[11]. The dearth of English sources notwithstanding, the amount of Thai news coverage easily establishes her notability per the GNG. The competency concerns are shared by me, but that is best addressed at a different venue. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitch Creek Cow Camp, Idaho

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

Both sources refer to Bitch Creek, not whatever was here – likely a ranch as on 1965 topo. Zero newspapers.com hits for this locale, not "an unincorporated community" as originally claimed. Reywas92^Talk 03:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article only stated "unincorporated community" for a few days after creation in 2012 and was corrected to "unincorporated locale" after the previous AfD deletion which was rebuffed with the comment "rem. prod. being on a map is the notability req. for a place". Indeed there appear to be quite a few other "unincorporated locale"s on Wikipedia. Are newspapers.com hits a listed criterion for notability? The locale is on the USGS map at https://www.mytopo.com/locations/index.cfm?fid=377708 and also listed in their survey at https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rsbiAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA3-PA40&lpg=RA3-PA40#v=onepage&q&f=false Harami2000 (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harami2000, unfortunately a GNIS entry is not sufficient to prove notability. Take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features)#GNIS_database. One problem is that the GNIS definition for populated place is not sufficient for notability, see WP:GEOLAND. Another issue is that GNIS includes things like railroad crossings and non-notable ranches. (BTW - to search the GNIS database, see https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=gnispq . Once you have the GNIS number, you can use the GNIS template {{GNIS2|377708}} ends up looking like: [12], see Template:GNIS.) I think one thing that happened is that editors saw the GNIS as an unquestioning source of articles so many articles were created. Unfortunately, like getting married and then getting divorced, creating an article is much easier than deleting the article. Per WP:GEOLAND#2, Newspapers.com hits that are non-trivial coverage can be helpful to show notability. We had a discussion about whether having a Post Office was sufficient. It seems like a good WP:BEFORE methodology here is to look through newspapers.com and/or newspaperarchive.com (free accounts are available for Wikipedians). For US states, looking for a book about place names can also help. Through my library, I have access the EBSCO Masterlist, which has magazines including regional magazines that could have non-trivial coverage. Cxbrx (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) That PROD removal rationale is blatantly false: WP:NGEO says “This guideline specifically excludes maps and various tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject.“ Yes, the USGS topo maps used to be pretty comprehensive and mark every Joe Schmo’s ranch and water tank and whatnot but that doesn’t mean we need articles on them. A locale is quite broad (including ranches) and like anything else requires significant coverage per WP:GNG, which this lacks. Reywas92^Talk 20:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Searching on this one produces geo-clickbait results that are scanty even by foreign locale standards, much less US. The only book hits are two gazetteers. A 1960-era aerial photo shows a house on the site which is now gone. No evidence this was every anything but a ranch. Mangoe (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence this ranch was ever actually notable, back when it was a functioning ranch.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Grammar School

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. RS coverage not found. b uidhe 16:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near meeting our notability guidelines for an organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Onsters in Dungeons & Dragons. Tone 09:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rust monster

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

A notorious creature within D&D, but fails WP:GNG when it comes to any kind of realworld significance. Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources and largely sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Realworld significance" has no bearing on notability. Both the unicorn and the dragon have no "realworld significance" but are considered notable. For Rustie here, the three RS's Witwer, Ewalt and Bricken are enough to establish notability for this friendly little critter. Guinness323 (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While not really relevant to the topic, I just want to point out that Unicorns and Dragons certainly have real-world significance. Whether as major elements used in Heraldry, to being used as national symbols to being important parts of major religions. All of this and more, I would say, is actual real world significance for these fictional beasts. Rorshacma (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Ewalt is very definition of mention in passing, Bricken is trivia/fancruft, and Witwer, well, appears to be in passing (through I don't have access to the source, but anyway, the ref doesn't even specify page numbers). I'd be rather surprised if anyone discussed this topic in depth outside fancruft-like coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons - I have argued elsewhere that the Arts & Arcana book is not an independent source for establishing notability for Dungeons and Dragons related topics as, despite it being published by Ten Speed Press rather than Wizards, it is an officially licensed and branded product, and Wizards lists it on the D&D site as an official product. While others may disagree, I have not been convinced otherwise. That leaves one potentially decent source in Of Dice and Men, and a bunch of short entries in fluff "Top Ten" lists that really do not denote notability (the one by Bricken specifically mentioned above is literally just a straight description of the creature in-game and nothing more). Further searches just bring up the usual array of primary sources, non-reliable sources, and game guides. I do agree that, as an originally created monster with some small amounts of coverage, it should be covered on the main topic of D&D monsters, and taking a look there shows that it is already mentioned there. Redirecting there would make sense, and the history would be preserved if any merging is deemed necessary. Rorshacma (talk)

Comment And I will gladly point out (again) that Witwer et al sought the license from Wizards in order to be able to freely use any and all artwork, artists' sketches, etc. as they show the evolution of artwork in the world of Dungeons & Dragons from high school amateur swipes of comics to professional oil paintings. Independent publisher, copyright is owned by Witwer et al = independent source. I would also point out that the authors are somewhat less than flattering to TSR and Wizards in several instances, hardly the actions of an in-house author. Of course license holder Wizards is going to market it as an "official" product, who would look a gift horse like this in the mouth? Coverage of Rustie in Witwer et el shows the entire development and evolution from a strange Japanese plastic model owned by Gygax through to its present form. I'll have the page numbers posted in a couple of days. Guinness323 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation and reason as to why it became an officially licensed product is really irrelevant to whether or not it is an officially licensed product, which it is. And to me, official D&D product = not independent. Again, I acknowledged in my comment that there is disagreement on the matter until some sort of consensus among users is established regarding it, so you are free to argue otherwise here. I just disagree with your assessment. Rorshacma (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The two sources by Bricken are not overly long, and the do contain descriptions of the monster - though that is worded very differently than it would be in a gaming product. They also contain an evaluation that and why it is especially fearsome to characters and memorable to player's - not because of the game-internal logic of power. And why the rust monster is ranked special. So it is not "literally just a straight description of the creature in-game and nothing more". Daranios (talk) 14:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It describes what a Rust Monster looks like, its behavior, its attacks, and the fact that it destroys metal objects, including magical items. That is a description of the monster as it exists in-game. Unless you are saying that "Its super-dangerous" counts as an evaluation. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Its super-dangerous" is indeed already evalution, because the primary sources say that is exactly not very dangerous. Then: The rust monster is an original D&D invention; is among the 10 most memorable and 12 most obnoxious monsters (according to Bricken), "will never be forgotten, especially by the role-players that fought them"; it so fearsome to characters and players "Not because they're so powerful, mind you, but because they're really annoying." None of that is in-game. Daranios (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any in-depth coverage (see also comment above). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft pending potential improvement; the title can be redirected to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons in the interim. BD2412 T 04:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are several secondary sources, which, in contrast to things brought forth above, go beyond descriptions and listing, but do some evaluation of the significance of the rust monster for players, and what that strange creature says about the game. And its important enough to appear beyond D&D and beyond role-playing games. If this is not considered enough for a separate article, merge to e.g. List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. That article needs more secondary sources, so merging will improve Wikipedia a tiny bit, while deletion does not. And we are here to improve Wikipedia, are we not? Daranios (talk) 14:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - The primary sources used are cheap listicles that hold little weight. TTN (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite factual. Some of the secondary sources present in the article are "listicles", some are not. Daranios (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, the secondary sources given in the article are unfortunately either in-universe or in-passing mentions. The creature is already mentioned in the main Monsters page, which is therefore a natural redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page 66 of Witwer et al is a full-page breakdown of how the artwork for the rust monster, the owl bear and the bulette was developed from plastic dime-store monsters to humble sketches to professional illustrations, and how those humble origins helped Gary Gygax to develop three of the first truly original D&D monsters and their abilities. Not an in-universe reference, not a passing mention. Guinness323 (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disputing that the coverage in Witwer et al is in-depth, what is disputed is whether it is an independent source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So there are arguments for and against it being an independent source. As long as there is no agreement if it is one or the other, affecting the status of the article with regard to notability: What would be the significant benefit for Wikipedia that would merit a deletion even in case of doubt? Daranios (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it because of dispute over the independence of the source would create the presumption that the source is independent, a presumption that would be counter to the rough consensus that has risen up around that source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, where and how has this "rough consensus" been established? As I am of the opposing opinion, I am naturally doubtful. As long as there is no clear consensus, I am still wondering, what benefit does a user of Wikipedia have from the deletion of this article? Daranios (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The “rough consensus” I was referring to is the fact that articles sourced primarily to the reference in question are not getting kept, so clearly there is rough consensus that it does not constitute a source that helps to pass GNG. The keeping of material that is considered to fail notability guidelines is harmful to Wikipedia, and by extension Wikipedia users. I feel this discussion has become irrelevant to the AfD that is being discussed. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 06:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victor E. Marsden

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

This article is a remnant of the chaos User:Ludvikus was strewing around The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for quite a while before he was banned. The content of this article relates to Ludvikus' obsession with using Wikipedia to further his research into the publishing history of the Protocols; pretty much nothing is known about the subject otherwise, and the whole thing can be a sentence in the Protocols article, if even that. "Someone named Marsden is credited with some of the editions." --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Author-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge if any RSed/non-OR material here doesn't appear in the main article already. This is definitely original research, about someone who clearly doesn't seem to be notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. It's really a shame, too. Ludvikus was an intrepid researcher, gleaning all sorts of interesting detail (and less interesting marginalia) about the Protocols and their publication. But working with Wikipedia was not in his constitution, I think. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This serves as a coatrack to talk about the levels of publication of antisemitic works, Henry Ford, his publications and Dearborn and other topics. It shows no actual notability for Marsden and as a coatrack is avoiding putting those topics in their proper context.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing kaiju films

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

Not notable nor significant enough to merit its own article. Uses sources that can be found in each film's own individual articles. Article is too close to WP:FAN as it only focuses on a select few films, most of which haven't been identified as "kaiju" films by other sources or their own studios/filmmakers. Armegon (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it did have 25 entries but was reduced due to not being referenced, it seems a valid split from the genre article which would be too long with this included. These films seem to fit the genre description of large monster attacking a city, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kaiju films are Japanese by default, hence the term "Kaiju Eiga." Something like Pacific Rim or Cloverfield wouldn't technically be considered a "kaiju eiga" because they are Hollywood productions. The following sources, here, here, and here emphasize that the genre itself is an "archetype in 20th Century Japanese storytelling." Additionally, the article is too small to merit displaying small box office numbers for films that have not broken records. If it was similar to articles like List of accolades received by Parasite or List of accolades received by Joker (2019 film), then there wouldn't be any need to challenge the article but its current form doesn't justify its existence. There's no source cited for the inflation section. Where are those figures even coming from? It's impossible to calculate the inflation for the Japanese films since there is no official sources to uncover the price of tickets at the time of the Japanese films' releases. Armegon (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Data table requires collating a group of sources of selected films (of that genre) to make the list, and does not rely on a valid source confirming which are indeed the highest grossing ones. Ajf773 (talk) 08:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Math on the inflation adjustment chart is completely off, because the number of ticket sales per film are not known (outside of Japan) and the chart uses U.S ticket prices to convert international grosses which skews the numbers. Not even Box Office Tracking websites like The-Numbers and Boxofficemojo do inflation adjustment with International grosses. Only domestic ones. So the numbers are completely inaccurate, unsourced (original research) and misleading.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reason for a stand alone. IW. (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Paul Hanmer. Non-notable albums are generally redirected to the artist. In this case I'm deleting first because of the concerns raised about likely CV. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Water and Lights

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

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance about this subject. Notability is questionable. Vmavanti (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreferenced article about an album. The promotionally-toned wording appears to be an extract from the album's PR ([13]) and so may be WP:COPYVIO. This could be replaced but would require some firm foundation to be established, and my searches are finding nothing beyond routine listings. Fails WP:NALBUM. AllyD (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sources could very well be out there. I found two RS that mentioned the album, but were more about Hanmer and South African music in general. Caro7200 (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ICICI Securities

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP: all sources are company profiles and WP:ROUTINE coverage. A BEFORE search turned up plenty of news mentions, but all of the news I found was routine ("such-and-such business partnered with ICICI" or "ICICI bought so-and-so"). General promotional/"about us" feeling to the article, but not enough to merit G11. creffett (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is among the largest brokerage companies in India.^[1] and as such qualifies for a WP:BRANCH from its parent company (ICICI Bank). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: as Tayi Arajakate said, it is one of the largest brokerage companies in India, as well as that, it has articles about it in multiple credible newspapers including Bloomberg and CNBC. It is currently selling shares on the stock market^[2] and, as Tayi said, is owned by a multi-billion dollar company, ICICI Bank^[3] as well as being one itself^[4]. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^{Talk to me}∕_{What have I been doing} 19:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, all the references provided the keep voters are BS trival mentions to make it seem notable by citation bombing and false claims of notability by association. Seriously, website that is nothing but a stock listing isnt valid for notability. It doesnt matter if they are listed on a stock exchange how big of firm they are.The only thing that establishes notability is in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Which this company doesnt have. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A firm of this size would almost always have in-depth coverage, a simple google search would show you as much which seems you weren't bothered to do before declaring it has no such coverage. For instance here's a company profile from Business Standard and here's a list of regular significant coverage from Reuters. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did, but nothing came up. Thanks though. As far the business profile goes, that's rutine coverage that is just a glorified press release. The routers coverage is the same exact crap that's not notable as the other sources are. Its pretty laughable to call three articles about trivial topics sigficant regular coverage. Nice try though. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you have even clicked on the links let alone do a google search. If you were to click on them, you would find there's more than three articles which you have mentioned. The primary subject of the articles are the company or its related activities and are more exhaustive than a simple press release. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. I don't give two craps about your opinion though. I put plenty of time into researching things. That said, this is a volunteer effort. As such, we do as little or as much as we can and it's pretty rude of you to call out other users just because you think they didn't look into things enough. It seems like every time an AfD about an Indian company comes up someone with your kind of bad attitude goes off on the people doing the AfD. They always do the same citation bombing of utterly trash sources you did and then get a massive attitude when their sources are rejected for being trash. The whole thing is pretty tiresome. It's not our job to spend endless amounts of time digging through your garbage sources or looking through Google endlessly to find the perfect, none existent article just to satisfy un-appreciative people like you. It is on you to make sure the articles you recommend actually satisfy notability criteria though. If you don't know them, fine learn them then, but don't attack me because your sources don't qualify. Waste your own damn time digging through Google News. Your the one going off about how the company is notable. So either spend time proving it or move the hell on. Sometime things aren't notable. That's life. Don't badger users about it though, because your wasting our time with it. It's not going to keep the article from being deleted if it's not notable. I'm sure as hell not changing my vote because due to your attitude. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but if you miss a basic observation that would be apparent from even glancing at the sources, you will be called out for it. As you say, it is volunteer work and if you find it tiring then you should probably not participate? I've'nt dragged you here or even pinged you to reply. But if you are going to participate then you should pay attention to the specific subject instead of working on presumptions and then going off on a rant. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except I said I did multiple times. Oterwise I wouldnt have known the coverage was trivial. You clearly either didnt read what I wrote or just dont care because it doesnt fot your narative. As I said already, the coverage in the actual damn articles, ALL OF WHICH I READ THROUGH, doesnt establish notability because they are GARBAGE SOURCES! Hopefully that's clear enough for you. Now piss the hell off and go harrase someone else. I'm not repeating myself again about it and I'm done dealing with your beniel, petulent attitude. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly recommend not participating if you're going to get this angry over nothing. It does not seem like it is my attitude which is the problem here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ROUTINE coverage of a non-notable company. Dorama285 (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic can be adequately covered in the ICICI Bank article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/41853431

[2] ttps://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/rise-of-discount-broking-zerodha-is-now-biggest-broker-in-india/articleshow/67470490.cms?from=mdr

[3] ttps://www1.nseindia.com/live_market/dynaContent/live_watch/get_quote/GetQuote.jsp?symbol=ISEC&illiquid=0&smeFlag=0&itpFlag=0

[4] ttps://www.icicibank.com/managed-assets/docs/about-us/2020/2019-12-31-ICICI_Bank_Financials_Q3-2020.pdf

[5] ttps://economictimes.indiatimes.com/icici-securities-ltd/balancesheet/companyid-5265.cms

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]