Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 27: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Atdevel (talk | contribs)
41 edits
Atdevel (talk | contribs)
41 edits
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media Coverage of Bernie Sanders (4th nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (4th nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Gopikrishnan}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Gopikrishnan}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riera de Carme}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riera de Carme}}

Revision as of 23:12, 27 August 2020

< 26 August 28 August >

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 keep. Consensus is keep, perhaps a merge is possible, but that can be discussed outside AfD. Tone 08:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

AfDs for this article:
Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia politics spans thousands of years. Not only was Bernie never nominated, there doesn't seem to be many unusual controversies, aside from a couple coverage disputes. Compared to human history as a whole, his campaign just wasn't that controversial. Many voters simply disagreed with his ideas. Atdevel (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or Merge with Bernie Sanders, and/or 2016 campaign, and/or 2020 campaign. While the nominator's rationale is vague and a bit difficult to parse, this monstrosity has been a blatant WP:NPOV WP:POVFORK from the very beginning. The entire concept of the article is laughable, and the topic has received no sustaining coverage since Sanders lost the primary. I think the article would've been deleted ages ago if it weren't for the IP and SPA activity in prior discussions. KidAd talk 23:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP A rather large number people participated earlier this year in an AFD for this. Nothing has changed. Reliable sources give significant coverage to this, so it passes the general notability guidelines, just as it did the previous times it went to AFD. Dream Focus 02:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable sources give significant coverage to this. A two-part rebuttal:
(1) Many many things gets significant coverage in a presidential election. If a campaign screams "the media is biased", it will often get reported by someone. Every election also has meta pieces about "media coverage" and "media bias" mentioning many candidates. For example, the best sources in this article are academic books and reports which cover media coverage in general and mention many presidential candidates.
(2) There is not significant coverage about this subject beyond what could easily be covered in one paragraph in the Bernie Sanders bio and 2-3 paragraphs in the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign and Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign pages. The high-quality sourcing in this article is primarily about media coverage in general during the 2016 campaign, with sources covering Sanders as much as they cover Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich, and far less than they cover Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The only reason why a specific Sanders page was created was because "the media is against Sanders" became a popular refrain among Sanders supporters and his campaign, which conservatives then latched onto to justify their own hatred of the media and/or to sow discord among Democrats. On the basis of "significant coverage", similar articles could be created for Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Jill Stein, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, and Gary Johnson because those candidates all made similar claims about media bias which were covered by reliable sources. There are probably more high-quality RS that cover Rubio and Cruz's grievances during the 2016 campaign. None of these politicians merit a unique "Media coverage of X" article because their grievances can easily be covered in 1-2 paragraphs in larger general articles, just as the Sanders campaign's can. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFIABILITY, the same reasons I gave when nominating this article for deletion in January: Bernie Sanders is still the only BLP with an entire page devoted to media coverage of the subject. While the media's coverage of Sanders may be notable, I doubt he is the only person in the world for whom this is the case. This article was started as a WP:POVFORK asserting that the media is biased against Sanders. While the title was changed from "Media bias against Bernie Sanders", the content has not reflected this change. It is still a list of assertions from pundits alleging bias against Sanders with limited rebuttal and remarkably little verifiable fact. Some of this content could be merged into his page and pages for his presidential campaigns, but the article as it stands is far from encyclopedic, and my attempts to make constructive edits have been repeatedly rebuffed to the point where I have stopped editing the page. --WMSR (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I firmly reject the premise of the nomination. This is a notable subject. That said, in the previous AfD, I advocated for the removal of this version of the article because it was politically hijacked by WP:AGENDA people to turn it into the dismissive article it currently is. If you read the article, only one side is being presented. It is so non-sensical to repeatedly say "there is nothing to see here folks" when the details and depth of the allegations they are defending against are not presented. You "doth protest too much, methinks" We should have a proper article about the Bernie Blackout. I always advocate for retention of valid content, however I do not like wikipedia hosting incorrect information. This version of the article removed a large amount of content that previously told the story. It is now incomplete, distorted and thus incorrect information. Trackinfo (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election or a similar article. Per WP:NOT: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. US presidential elections get enormous, saturation-volume media coverage and even minor details would be sufficient to pass the GNG, but that doesn't mean we should have an article on them. Taking a longer view I don't think Bernie Sanders is going to be nearly significant enough to justify this kind of treatment. While he's an influential figure now, he's also a US Senator known for unsuccessfully seeking the Democratic presidential nomination twice, and I don't think he will be widely remembered, say, fifty years from now. Imagine how people would feel about an article on, say, Media coverage of George McGovern. I also think it's significant that this article consists almost entirely of statements some person or group has made about media coverage of Bernie Sanders, referenced to the place where those statements were made. The coverage apparently doesn't allow building a narrative, as opposed to a series of isolated quotes. Hut 8.5 07:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any truly revelant portions to the article on Senator Sanders. There is no reason for this content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If only because I see little reason to delete and it is still kind of topical, maybe after the election if things quiet down, could do a merge.Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^ WP:HARMLESS. Time to stop putting this off. Sanders’ role in this election ended months ago. KidAd talk 13:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator appears a single purpose account, one shouldn't follow recommendations from them or supporters of such accounts.Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sufficient sources to establish notability. I found for example on the first page of a google search for media coverage bernie sanders:
"The media keep falling in love — with anybody but Bernie Sanders" (Washington Post)
"What Bernie Sanders Gets Right About the Media" (New York Times]])
"Coverage of Bernie Sanders suffers from a lack of imagination" (Columbia Journalism Review)
"Bernie Sanders versus the “corporate media,” explained" (Vox Media)
"Why Does Mainstream Media Keep Attacking Bernie Sanders as He Wins?" {GQ)
Also a podcast with FiveThirtyEight and articles in In These Times, the Pointer Report and Jacobin (magazine)

TFD (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is composed from opinion quotes. All the others are about Bernie's view of the media, not about media coverage of him. Atdevel (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the articles outline how Sanders has been covered in the media and include comments about the coverage by Sanders supporters, journalists and media observers. There is general agreement on the facts presented, and differing opinions on the reasons. TFD (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Had it just been a talking point during the 2020 campaign, it would have been one thing, but it was the same during the 2016 campaign too. There are ample sources discussing the Bernie Blackout phenomena ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) and even a full-length documentary ([6]). The topic is unquestionably notable. ImTheIP (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An article for the documentary would make sense, but this would be very different from the current article. Relative historical significance should be taken into account in assessing importance, and Bernie didn't even get the nomination once, which simply increases the chance for being president. Atdevel (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked up the Bernie Blackout documentary, it's actually more about his campaign in general than media coverage https://www.al.com/life/2020/05/alabama-filmmaker-how-we-made-our-bernie-sanders-doc.html Atdevel (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. Gopikrishnan

J. Gopikrishnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources present in the article itself are either not independent, not reliable or are passing mentions. A before search presents a similar picture with mostly passing mention that too mostly from unreliable sources. At best the subject is a boderline case of WP:BLP1E. Tayi Arajakate Talk 22:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate Talk 22:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate Talk 22:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Priyanjali singh: Would you be able to please provide those sources, as well as evidence for the claim that Gopikrishnan received that award? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsPugle: Found these resources and i think these are enough to justify the subject's notability. Thhindu, HindustanTimes, ZeeNews. Priyanjali singh (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Priyanjali singh: The Hindu and ZeeNews sources gives a somewhat passive, one-sentence mention about Gopikrishnan, which was limited to again, the 2G spectrum scandal (See WP:NTEMP and WP:SUSTAINED) and the Hindustan source only lists Gopikrishnan as someone who gave evidence in a trial. I don't quite think that's notable enough. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 17:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 15:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riera de Carme

Riera de Carme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any actual importance in this, it seems more like a useless tourist ad than anything. ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 22:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 22:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. Its pretty lazy to just drop a link to google at the end of the discussion and say keep per that when other editors have made a real effort to discuss and analyse the sources available. I'm not therefore relisting as I might in another discussion where sourcing had not been as well examined.

For the actual close, the redirect seems a valid compromise given the strong arguments on both sides, albeit the delete analysis around the context of the coverage seems more compelling. Spartaz Humbug! 06:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khemed

Khemed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May not meet Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirements. Perhaps redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. Goustien (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? WP:WAF is a writing guideline. Unless there is a GNG or copyright issue, it has nothing to do with deletion, or whether or not something is kept. If something is poorly sourced or poorly written, that's generally not an AfD problem. AfD is not clean up, and WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE are pertinent.
It amazes me how someone who has been active on Wikipedia for so long can lack a basic understanding of deletion procedure. WP:DELREASON exists for exactly this purpose. Darkknight2149 03:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 6#Khemed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of it is plot summary. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see an assertion, not a refutation. All I see is a plot summary. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. All content is pure plot and the cited sources don't go beyond it, despite assertions to the contrary, no quote has been provided that shows existence of a non-plot summary analysis, nor does the article contain a shred of a reception/analysis/etc. PS. The French article has a small seciton about 'sources of inspirastion' fr:Khemed#Sources_d'inspirations_d'Hergé but I don't think it is enough, through if translated that would could be merged to the entry about this place in the linked list. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I don't see how the book linked by Toughpigs could be called a plot summary per se. It is used as an example for international conflict resolution. Not all pages are available (at least to me) but it looks like it provides enough about the situation for the author to explain how his ideas would apply. The rest of the sources seem okay, but that one puts it over the WP:N bar for me. Hobit (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's certainly a fine source for the main article or maybe an article on like the "World or politics of Tintin," but it adds nothing to the topic of the fictional country in terms of real world commentary. It's just an analysis of the fictional context with no emphasis on any of the countries. TTN (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Fails WP:N. The commentary quoted above is about the Tintin books and their (fictional and real) politics, which are notable, not about the fictional location as such, which is not. Khemet is Hergé's pastiche of a stereotypical Arab emirate. How this culture is portrayed in Tintin is a matter of encyclopedic interest, but is best covered in context in the articles about the books and the series. What we have here is entirely in-universe description of the setting, i.e. fancruft fit only for fan wikis, but not Wikipedia (see MOS:FICTIONAL). Sandstein 09:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Merge and redirect and comment This info is fairly thin, but there are possibilities to beef up the context. For example, in Land of Black Gold#Third version: 1971, it turns out that this location was originally meant to be British Mandate for Palestine, but was changed at the request of British publishers. Perhaps this is covered in more detail in one of the Herge biographies or Tintin compendiums - I don't have access to the source used in the Black Gold article for that info. Also, there's nothing about how scholars and biographers interpret Herge's depiction of this fictitious country and its residents in the face of his other thinly veiled biases. Lastly, there's nothing about the role the country plays in the plot of the two books it appears in. Additional info in those areas might send this into weak keep territory, but right now it's a weak delete merge and redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Theodoros a suitable compromise?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 02:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments and also because it contributes to a more complete and detailed understanding of Herge's universe and his era's Western perceptions of "the exotic" and "the other." --MaeseLeon (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing of this sort is sadly presented in the article, and nobody displayed good sources to use - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Center (mental health organization)

Freedom Center (mental health organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

advertising for a charity--purely promotional style more suited for its web page. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THAT Agency

THAT Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure advertising, cited to promotional interviews and promotional awards DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - INC list itself is notable, but that does not mean every entry is notable. Being the 3,432nd fastest growing company is a great thing to advertise, but I just don't see how that creates notability. There is no in depth discussion or profile along with the INC list, just the name and raw data. I still don't think this is a notable company. Also worth noting that it is not a curated list, in that it is based entirely on statistics and was not chosen by INC as a noteworthy company. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with El cid, while the INC list itself is notable, an entry on the list does not confer notability. None of the references I have seen meet the criteria for establishing notability. The bizjournals reference mentioned above lacks any detail about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. And the San Francisco Chronicle reference is marked as originating from PRWEB, therefore self-published and fails as an Independent reference. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing++ 18:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sarah Zucker. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Current Sea

The Current Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable advertising for non-notable advertising consultancy. Apparent coi. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had not noticed the individual also had an article. A merge is fine with me. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

José Antonio Zapata Cabral

José Antonio Zapata Cabral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journalist and filmmaker with unverifiable grand claims. Reads like a CV. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Newsom

Ted Newsom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability. Can’t find a lot of reliable sources to corroborate much of the information within the article, source supporting his death is relatively weak. Doesn’t look like much of his filmography is notable either. Rusted AutoParts 20:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Expertwikiguy: If you're referring to the Tim Burton movie, that isn't the Ed Wood movie he was involved in. Rusted AutoParts 06:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Chhota Bheem#Television films. There is consensus to not keep the article. Redirects are cheap so... delete and redirect. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chhota Bheem: Dholakpur ke Khiladi

Chhota Bheem: Dholakpur ke Khiladi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film with nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to establish notability. Tagged for over a year. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chhota Bheem In Junglee Kabila

AfDs for this article:
Chhota Bheem In Junglee Kabila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film with nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to establish notability. Tagged for over a year. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a blatant hoax. Fences&Windows 12:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mittir Masi

Mittir Masi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominator's statement: Non notable activist/detective, fails WP:GNG. All of references are misleading/unrelated. No mention of the person nowhere in references. I did google search with "Mittir Masi" & "মিত্তির মাসি" but unable to find one single source (while searching, please don't confuse with Mitin Masi (মিতিন মাসি)). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mittir Masi is a planned baseless article to troll a non-notable female of Facebook. This article has almost cloned the name of a genuine article Mitin Masi. First, three citations nothing related to either this article or article Mitin Masi. Citation 4th, 5th and 6th are for article Mitin Masi and 7th citation are not related for both the articles. So there is not a single citation for this article. This article is created by a new user. I came to know abt this article after receiving complaints from a journalist who read Wikipedia. It's a serious issue after my complain Bengali Wikipedia deleted this article. Hope you too will take genuine action to the editor and for the article. Some site publishes Wikipedia articles like this and they hv started defaming that person providing the reference of Wikipedia. This is a serious planned offence to the woman. How come without a single verified citation for this person this article remain for more than a week? Pls take action to those editors and block those ip if IP address is used, I am afraid if media take this issue moral of an editor like us will be down. ---Sumita Roy Dutta (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The content has descriptions and language more suitable for a comic book character and not an actual person. This is in line with the above remarks by bnwiki editors (which I'm not) suspecting a bogus biography and possibly not in good faith. Note that the only other page on this subject was deleted from the Bengali WP. The statements in the Wikidata item provide only the English WP page as references. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Volcana (DC Comics)

Volcana (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to establish independent notability. TTN (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Once again, per every deletion policy and guideline, "Fails to establish notability" is not a valid reason to nominate articles (especially multiple articles) for deletion. You should be aware of WP:DELREASON by now.
    • Per WP:ARTN, "Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article."
    • Per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article."
    • Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
    • Per WP:GNG, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists which restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."
Do we really need to go through this again? WP:GNG refers to the existence of sources, not the citations in the article. Darkknight2149 10:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verifiability means that sources need to be connected with the article. If you can find adequate sources you can add them to the article. Wikipedia has no grandfather clause, so we show no deference to past editors and follow sourcing, not inividual whims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Negative. Nothing in WP:Verifiability overrides deletion nomination policy. If you believe or can establish that an article truly fails WP:GNG, then you have a basis for a nomination. "There aren't enough sources in the article to establish WP:GNG" doesn't cut it, particularly when it comes to filing multiple nominations. Darkknight2149 18:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; as per discussions above, I feel the nominator needs to come back here and demonstrate lack of notability. In the absence of same, Keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep The nominator does not say if they completed a Before search for sources before nominating for deletion. They may have done so, but judging from the deletion rationale it seems they did not. I agree that this article should be kept, at least for now. Rhino131 (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shourya Deep

Shourya Deep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shayan Italia

AfDs for this article:
Shayan Italia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At this point, I feel like a detective. What a con job this article has been for more than a decade now! Please bear with me as I enumerate all the evidence gathered and the problems with this fluff-fest. Why 3rd nomination, you ask? Well, in the first one in 2009, the subject's self-published music albums were mistakenly believed to be independent, and from what i see "significant coverage" was misapplied to the one event of him auctioning his future earnings on ebay to raise funds. The 2nd nom in 2017 was by a drive-by user, so was a procedural speedy keep. Now. I've dug around enough. Here's the problem with this article: it wholly fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO!

Then there's the fact that the article has only ever been edited by the subject, sockpuppets, and Single Purpose Accounts, and most recently User:Musiceditor123, another SPA ( and as it appears a self-confessed associate to boot!), who has been at it since 2010 and has only added promotional junk like this, this and this about startups/philanthropy/awards; uploaded the subject's images or created articles about his song/album (now deleted).

Every single link I can find on Shayan Italia is promotional and PR-fed (yes, including that The Hindu entertainment section link). Most are about his millions of views of Youtube video of the Indian National Anthem, which are all promos/campaigns/interviews copied from this press release. It was a well-orchestrated, publicity campaign by the digital agency BC Web Wise (see PR) coinciding with India's i-Day. All of it fails MUSICBIO 1#ii (Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising). The other 'notable' bit about the eBay auction was back in 2009, as mentioned in the Guardian. It is trivial fluff - a whacky story about a crazy-sounding online event in pre-social media world. Both these are instances of WP:ONEEVENT. There have been no albums released since the article was created, no major songs, no music of any note for someone whose alleged notability is of a singer. The ones cited in first nom were self-published by the company FM Publishing (now shut), whose directors are Italia (yes, he) and family. See liquidation report. The subject fails every criterion under WP:MUSICBIO.

I'm taking the liberty of notifying all who were involved in the previous noms (barring sockpuppets) to re-examine the new evidence and sources (if they are keen, that is): Hekerui, L0b0t, EdJohnston, Michig, Drmies, Abecedare, Bongomatic, Serial Number 54129, SoWhy. Have done so because this is a serious and a very long (unadressed?) case of possible Paid Editing and heavy COI, and such an article makes a travesty of Wikipedia!

Concluding request: If anyone is voting Keep, could you please not just say "many articles exist about him" and, instead, provide exact links to stories you found to be independent, in-depth, non-PR. Also, if anyone thinks I've misstepped anywhere, I'd be glad to be corrected. Thanks! Best regards, MaysinFourty (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MaysinFourty (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MaysinFourty (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MaysinFourty (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MaysinFourty (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MaysinFourty (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those people that were pinged--I'm in good company, but User:EdJohnston was there as well (and Bongo...I miss you). I voted "delete" a long time ago, and I had reasons for it--lack of sourcing, or lack of proper sourcing to generate notability. I see no reason to change my mind, but my old friend Hekerui probably sees no reason to change theirs. That Musiceditor might well be a sock, but it's kind of a useless question given how old the other account is; for our purposes, though, this edit alone was enough to block them as a "SPAM ONLY" account, and that's what I placed. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have revisited my 'delete' vote in the original 2009 AfD and have the same opinion now. It seems there was a rumor that he had released 'Deliverance' on Universal, a major label. Further study gives no evidence that Universal made such a release. A check for 'Shayan Italia' on discogs.com suggests he has one album, 'Deliverance', released by FM Publishing Limited in 2006 and a few singles and EPs. That firm only ever released records by him, and was liquidated in 2015, as pointed out above by the nominator. Two of the stockholders were surnamed 'Italia'. So we would probably conclude that his records were self-published. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW re: the Universal label. Many self-promoting music acts claim an impressive sounding affiliation with Universal for simply being a customer of their distribution services. It's not the same as being signed and paid by a major label to be part of their galaxy of recording artists; it's just the opposite--a service available from a major Music conglomerate to any music label that is willing to let Universal distribute their product for a percent of sales, and dutifully entered in their database as "available" from Universal (which duped an earlier AfD editor into thinking this artist was releasing on a major label.) The reason why you can't find Shayan Italia among lists of Universal recording artists is because the actual label is FM Publishing, which is his own company. It is not a major label. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The responses suggest that the subject still doesn't satisfy GNG despite there being a lot of interviews and some other coverage. Wouldn't be against recreation if notability could be established. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Yazdani

AfDs for this article:
Farid Yazdani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are at least three problems with this biography of a living person. First, a Google search finds that Farid Yazdani is an Iranian-Canadian actor who uses social media and has an extensive on-line presence. It says over and over again that he is a Canadian actor or an Iranian-Canadian actor. That is more or less what it says. We knew that. Second, there was already a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farid Yazdani, and it concluded that he did not satisfy acting notability or general notability. He still doesn't. None of the roles listed in this draft since 2017 are major roles. Third, this article appears to be an autobiography, the submission of which is discouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • I would like to know how Farid being an Iranian-canadian actor or a Canadian actor is grounds for termination. Upon googling his imdb and instagram page - there is nothing mentioned about him being Iranian. There is mention of him on numerous American and Canadian Television series. To address the acting notability or general notability disclaim, Farid was highlighted in red on many other wikipedia pages such as the Suits Season 5 under recurring cast (2.2), The Odd Squad wiki page, under villains (2.2.3) as well as the S.I.N. Theory page under cast. To me, it seems important enough for him to be listed on many other verified wikipedia pages. Third - CBC has just released a press package stating that he has been recently cast as a series supporting on a new series titled: Feudal. [1] I can predict that show will made into a wiki page as well. Farid is also verified on Facebook [2]. Don't know how much more is needed before "credibility" is high enough 170.10.244.114 (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Notability is not about how many Wikipedia pages link (or redlink) to someone, especially since this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and articles wildly vary in quality and how much necessary or unnecessary information they include, so that's not really a valid argument here. It's about how many third party reliable sources cover a person or subject as more than a side mention. The Iranian-Canadian bit I think is either saying the article is missing information or that a quick Google search didn't bring up sources that confirmed notability, not that his nationality is an issue. His Facebook page and whether or not it's verified isn't really relevant to the points raised in this discussion. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Further, the article (created 16:42, 27 August 2020 UTC (link to first revision)) was not redlinked on Odd Squad until approximately an hour before its creation (15:56 to 15:58, 27 August 2020 UTC (diff)) and was not redlinked at all on Suits recently (link was added 16:47, 27 August 2020 UTC (diff), five minutes after this article's creation). Both of these new linkings were added by the article's creator. I'll bite that S.I.N. Theory was redlinked--it was added back in 2013 by what appears to be a different account of Yazdani's. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Some part of me thinks it's possible he meets notability but I'm leaning the other way strongly enough to vote toward deletion. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment I would like to again point out there are many articles and interviews of Farid Yazdani online [3] - which I think validates his credibility. I think it's a weak delete request indeed and it should stay. As soon as Feudal is released, a wikipedia page will once again be made and I have a feeling it will stay. I'm just creating the page on his behalf to get ahead of the media push. I don't think the points are valid enough as he is a supporting lead on a new CBC TV series - which in alone should be enough credibility as it addresses the claim that he hasn't played in a "major role". [4]
Speaking about himself in Q&A interviews doesn't demonstrate notability — we require sources in which other people are writing or speaking about him in the third person. And even if you're going for "notable because he's had acting roles", that test isn't passed just because roles are listed — it's passed only when one or more of his roles have made him the subject of enough reliable source third party journalistic coverage about him in real media to pass WP:GNG, and no number of roles exempts a person from having to have coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore to the point of Facebook, it is relevant as grounds for acting notability states in section 2 that the entertainer "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Upon searching Facebook, I believe his page has a modest 16,000+ followers. 170.10.244.114 (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The number of followers a person does or doesn't have on a social networking platform has absolutely nothing to do with our notability criteria for people in any occupation, and actors are not automatically notable just because it's possible to verify that acting roles were had — the notability test for an actor requires things like notable acting awards, and/or media coverage that is substantively about him and his performances, which is not the same thing as merely having his name passingly mentioned in casting announcements, or appearing on the cover of a magazine that doesn't have a feature piece about him inside the issue, or speaking about himself in the first person in a Q&A interview on a local newscast. Obviously no prejudice against recreation at a later date if Feudal either gets him more substantial coverage or scores him a Canadian Screen Award nomination — but nothing that's already stated in the article today is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sourcing than this — we're looking for journalism, not photographs or press releases or social networking posts. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do video interviews count toward press? I feel like they should be worth just as much if not more than print. For print, the page has already sourced an article that is strictly about him and his work [5]. I can also source at least 3 interviews on CP24 which is one of Toronto's largest, if not largest news outlet.

[6] [7] [8]

No, interviews don't count in any format, because they represent the subject talking about himself in the first person — but to count toward getting him over GNG, a source has to represent other people talking or writing about his importance and impact in the third person. You're allowed to sparingly use interviews for additional verification of facts after he's already been shown to clear GNG on proper journalism — for instance, if it happens to be in an interview that a person confirms their exact birthdate or their ethnic background, or comes out as LGBTQ or whatever, then you can use the interview to source that fact — but the interviews are not GNG-making coverage in and of themselves, if the article doesn't contain a sufficient number of third party sources written in the third person. Notability is not a thing people get to give themselves by talking about themselves self-promotionally — it's a thing other people have to anoint them with by externally and objectively assessing and analyzing the significance of their work, such as by writing content about it in newspapers and magazines and books. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentFarid also won a Canadian Comedy award for Day Players [9], to add to the request for notable awards. He is seen talking about it in 2 of the interviews. I've answered every single request that has been made regarding what needs to be seen. The proof is sourced and reliable. Ive seen weaker wiki pages about other actors with less sourcing. Seems like a prejudice at this point and a weak delete request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.10.244.114 (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every award that exists is not always an automatic notability clincher — awards support notability only to the extent that said award gets media coverage. If you want to make a person notable for winning an award, you cannot source that award win to the award's own self-published website about itself; it has to be sourced to journalistic reportage about the award ceremony in order to establish that the award is a notable one in the first place. Notability is not simply a matter of counting the number of footnotes an article has in it — there are a lot of websites out there that are not reliable or notability-supporting sources, so notability is about evaluating the quality of the sources rather than just their number. It is entirely possible for a person with more footnotes to be less notable than a person with fewer footnotes, because the quality of the sources is much more important than how many footnotes there are or aren't. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of military installations in Massachusetts. Tone 18:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Hingham Camp

South Hingham Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. The sole source is self-published with minimal details. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Schoolhouse

The Schoolhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Half of the references don't actually mention this venue, and #2 only does so in passing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Judging from the text in the article it seem fairly notable, so the matter is whether more sources than those already listed can be found? How easy it is to source the avantgarde scene depends to some extent on how they chose to advertise their performances. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 18:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chief customer officer

Chief customer officer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources of this job role. There is a Wired article but it is tagged Partner Content so I think may be paid. There is a Forbes post but it is at forbes.com/sites/, which is mentioned as potentially not reliable at WP:RSVETTING. Tacyarg (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| [babble] || 04:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atour Sargon

Atour Sargon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NPOL.John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don't really see any reason why the page should be deleted. The article as is currently uses 13 reliable sources, 12 of which (as far as I can tell) are secondary. This is more than the amount of sources used to create some stub-class articles that are still allowed to stay up on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, another user removed the stub tags that were previously on the page due to the larger amount of secondary sources used (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atour_Sargon&diff=974200341&oldid=974163585), but if this is still too few, I am happy to re-add the stub tags as an alternative to deletion. I am also willing to add a disclaimer at the top, such as the article needing additional citations for verification, etc, as an alternative to deletion.

As far as notabiliy goes, the amount of sources used should be enough to confirm a level of notability, but if they aren't, I am happy to add more since there are a lot more online. Also, because she is the first person to hold the specific position that she currently holds (as per all of the sources), I think it's worth keeping. In the very least, it should be kept for that reason and maybe have a disclaimer at the top, such as "more citations needed," etc.

Lastly, aside from the nomination for deletion, no reason has been provided on the talk page for why it should be deleted in the first place, so it's not really even clear which one of Wikipedia's reasons for deleting an article that this article would fall under. But I think the reasons I provided and the alternatives that I suggested show that this article can still be kept while maybe putting some dislciamers at the heading of the page that address whatever issues with the article we might have.

Ninos2576 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - also wanted to respond to the reasons for deletion - I feel like the "notable for one event" option doesn't really apply since there's a separate section titled "Assyrian activism" that shows activism that she's done unrelated to the position (AMPAC, Vote Assyrian board member, Census project, guest speaking, and giving lectures with senators). On the second point, fact that she's a local politician isn't necessarily a reason to delete as the situation has received press attention and it isn't the only thing she is known for, as previously mentioned.

Thank you for listening

Ninos2576 (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I would also like to add my thoughts on the two reasons for the article's proposed deletion, since I don't believe I addressed them before. This is meant to be a comment under my "keep" vote. Apologies if I did not format it as such.

The first one, (Fails WP:BLP1E) states that she is notable for only one event. This isn't true since, as mentioned in the article, she is known for being the first Assyrian elected to the Lincolnwood board, being a board member of Vote Assyrian, being an advisor for the American Middle East Voters Alliance PAC, encouraing Assyrians in the US to fill out the census through Vote Assyrian's national Census Project, addressing the public with a Senator about civic engagement among Assyrians, being the co-chair of Schakowsky's Annual Ultimate Women's Power gathering (which included guests like Lori Lightfoot and Jill Biden, founding the Assyrian Chaldean Syriac Student Movement, being a guest speaker at several public events pertaining to Assyrians, and so on.

The second proposed reason (WP:NPOL) states that the article should be deleted because she is a local politician who does not recevie much media attention. I believe this doesn't apply for a few reasons.

Firstly, It assumes that the article ONLY claims that she's notable for being a local politician, which isn't true. There's an entire section labeled Assyrian activism that shows reasons she is notable aside from her position (a lot of those reasons are mentioned above in my first point). All of the information in this section is sourced with reliable sources that are all both secondary and independent. The two Youtube videos used as sources are "Civic Engagement in the Assyrian Community" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVEKAqZbjD0&t=3m05s) and the Assyrian Student Association of Chicago's 2020 Graduation Ceremony (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eku_2Qw4pgc&t=53m27s). These are both reliable sources in this case because they are both interviews/speeches from Sargon, and the only information being claimed from them is that Sargon gave an interview/speech about a specific topic. The article only refers to the 2020 graduation video by saying "Sargon was a guest speaker at the Assyrian Student Association of Chicago's class of 2020 virtual graduation ceremony" which the video obviously can reliably prove. The claim that the article makes about the civic engagement video is that "In September 2019, Sargon, along with Senator Ram Villivalam and representatives from Vote Assyrian, addressed the public about the importance of civic engagement among the Assyrian American Community" which the video also obviously can reliably prove. None of the information that is said within the videos is cited, just the fact that the videos were taken, as well as information that Sargon provides about her personal life in the video.

Secondly, if you look at the WP:NPOL, you'll see that it says, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." This means that Sargon can still have a page as a local politician if she meets the general notability guidelines. One of the requirements listed in the page is "Significant coverage." Sargon's wikipedia page proves that she has received significant coverage. She is the sole subject of the article "Atour Sargon, longtime Lincolnwood resident, runs on ticket of transparency, diversity" (https://theassyrianjournal.com/atour-sargon-longtime-lincolnwood-resident-runs-on-ticket-of-transparency-diversity/), and has a significant mention (including even being quoted) in the following articles: (http://nadignewspapers.com/2019/05/22/lincolnwood-trustees-sworn-in-at-meeting/) (https://theassyrianjournal.com/after-decades-of-underrepresentation-assyrians-find-their-place-in-the-polls/) (https://borderlessmag.org/2020/05/06/hard-to-count-assyrian-community-prepares-for-the-census-amid-covid-19/) (https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lincolnwood/ct-lwr-lincolnwood-election-tl-0411-story.html) (https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lincolnwood/ct-lwr-early-lincolnwood-results-tl-0404-story.html) (http://www.janschakowsky.org/blog/watch-19th-annual-ultimate-womens-power-lunch).

And, as required by the notability guidelines page, all of these sources are secondary and independent. They meet the qualification for secondary sources because, as per the Wikipedia:No original research page, under the "primary, secondary, and tertiary sources" header, the sources are all not produced by Sargon herself. They are independent sources too, since they are all produced by organizations that have no relation as per the Wikipedia:Independent sources page under the people category. They are not the person (Sargon), family members (anyone related to Sargon), friends (none of Sargon's friends), employer (no one who employs Sargon), or employees (no one employed by Sargon). The sources come from Jan Schakowsky's website (who is a congresswoman unrelated to Sargon in any of the previously mentioned ways), Borderless Magazine, the Chicago Tribune, Nadig Newspapers, the Assyrian Journal, Medill News Service, and some others. There is one primary source from the Village of Lincolnwood, who is Sargon's employer, but that's it (from what I see).

The only other grievance I believe I saw was that the sources are local and/or barely mention Sargon. My mention of the sources above shows why they do mention Sargon in depth. As for the point about them being local, this isn't true as well. After looking on the websites of the Assyrian Journal (https://dc.medill.northwestern.edu/#sthash.gtQV7Z1l.dpbs), Borderless Magazine (https://borderlessmag.org/), the Assyrian Journal (https://theassyrianjournal.com/), I see that they all cover a wide variety of significant national issues, not just local ones.

Because of all the reasons outlined above, I believe the page should exist in some capacity. I have addressed every argument on the contrary using wikipedia's own community guidelines. In the very least, it justifies having the page exist but using some of the alternatives to deletion mentioned by Wikipedia, such as having tags like cleanup, stub, refimprove, or the one that says that this biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. I feel as if though keeping the page but adding some of these tags as dislcaimers at the top is a good reason to keep it, since the stuff I addressed above shows why the page should exist in some capacity.

I believe this reply has addressed every grievance and reason as to why the article was proposed to be deleted, and show why it should exist in some capacity. Thank you again for listening to my suggestions

Ninos2576 (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Youtube is not a reliable source. Most of these sources have extremely passing mention of Sargon or are extremely local. Any elected official is going to get some level of coverage, but we have intentionally decided most elected officials are not notable if they have held only local positions. The passing mentions from other contexts do not add up to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the suggestion. But the Yotube sources in question are interviews/speeches by Sargon made and uploaded by third parties who are independent of her, meaning that they are secondary sources. And they are reliable because the only information being claimed through them is the fact that Sargon was giving speeches/interviews at certain times, and not citing any of the info that she claimed in those speeches/interviews. Since a lot of sources mention her and several in the article have her as the sole subject of them, perhaps one of the alternatives to deletion can be adding tags at the top of the page, such as stub tags or tags that critique some of the the sources used in the article? Just a possible alternative suggestion.

I also wanted to point out that there is an entire section titled "Assyrian activism" which points out other reasons unrelated to her local office position to show why she's notable. This means that the past standard for deletion probably doesn't apply because she's notable for reasons unrelated to the office (Vote Assyrian board member, AMVotePac board member, census campaigning, meeting with prominent politicians such as Schakowsky, Lori Lightfoot, and Ram Villivalam to discuss Assyrian issues, campaigning on behalf of these individuals, etc)

Thanks again.

Ninos2576 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Atour seems to fall under the "general notability" listing as she has received regular significant coverage as a political leader of a minority community from reliable sources independent of the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbjoe15 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails WP:NPOL for political career, but I also don't see notability for activism career. All but one of the sources for activism are connected to her or another political candidate in some way and aren't RS. The one potential RS (Borderless magazine) I see is quotes her about the census and has only like about her. I also don't see any GNG fulfilling sources, as the user above claims. Side note: there's possibly an offwiki attempt to brigade this, I'm sure any closer will be able to see. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 22:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't see why any of the sources in the activism section wouldn't apply. They are all either speeches with her in which she personally confirms information (all uploaded by people/groups who are unaffiliated with her), things uploaded by other parties' websites (such as Jan Schakowsky's website and the AMVOTEPAC Website), articles posted by news organizations (Borderless Magazine, Medill News, Nadig News, Assyrian Journal, etc). Some of them have extensive involvement/mention of her while others are less, but I think that proves that the page should exist in some capacity, at least with a stub tag or one of the tags that I mentioned before in my previous comment to notify readers that the article may have some weaknesses ("this biography of a living person needs additional cirations," etc.

Thank you. Ninos2576 (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like some additional commentary from other editors to if this subject meets NPOL
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would just like to point out since my last comment that the politics section of the article has grown substantially since it was last discussed on this board (see these diffs and note that the date/time difference is after the above comments and votes were posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atour_Sargon&diff=978994669&oldid=978372856 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atour_Sargon&diff=978997332&oldid=978996281). It grew to the point where it needed to be split into two sub-sections (“election” and “as trustee.” Furthermore, the politics section now cites a total of about 15 sources, including ones as prominent as the Chicago Tribune, and provides a much more detailed account of the political career. I think this shows that the article definitely should exist in some form as per WP:GNG. (maybe even as a stub or with a maintenance tag such as the ones in Template:BLP sources). Furthermore, I think WP:NPOL has been met as well. However, I just wanted to reiterate that the political career is not the only reason that the article cites her as being notable for, so WP:NPOL doesn’t necessarily apply, even though it has now been met by the substantial (and sourced) expansion of the political career section over the past few days. It also proves WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here. Thank you. Ninos2576 (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there's still no meeting of NPOL here. Every single reference is about her successful run for an utterly and completely insignificant office. The only sources that aren't local do not come within a driver's shot of meeting our reliable sources policy. And I'm sorry, but it's utterly ridiculous to hinge the achievement of such an insignificant office on the fact that she's the first of a certain nationality. She's an American, and per WP:INHERIT, facts about her parents are not relative to her notability.  John from Idegon (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I've said before, this "not meeting WP:NPOL" argument assumes that the only reason she's notable is for the position. She's not. there's an entire Assyrian activism section that shows her notability in ways that are completely divorced from the political position. this includes being a on an executive of two Middle Eastern nonprofit organizations, being a representative of the of the Assyrian community at a meeting with Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, Mayor of Chicago Lori Lightfoot, and Second Lady of the United States Jill Biden, being involved with the Vote Assyrian's census project, and being a guest speaker at several large Assyrian public events. This, AFTER BEING COMBINED with the political career, is more than enough to establish notability as per WP:GNG, which was mentioned by several other users on this discussion. Her position is not the only thing that establishes notability, as evidenced by the sources that make no mention or little mention of her position but still mention notable activism that she's done. Either way, the article still meets WP:NPOL considering the fact that the section now cites 15 reliable sources, including ones with a national scope such as the Chicago Tribune AND including sources where she's the sole subject or a significant subject of the source (The Assyrian Journal sources, the public speech sources, and the meeting with Schakowsky/Lightfoot/Biden source). This is a lot more than what can be said for many other stub-class biography articles on Wikipedia which are able to exist without question. This is a lot of coverage considering the fact that it's apparently an "insignificant position." The WP:INHERIT thing doesn't apply because Assyrian is an ethnicity, not a nationality, as per every single source on the Assyrian people Wikipedia page, as well as the common knolwedge that there is no modern country called Assyria for her or her parents to be from or be a citizen of. There hasn't been one for thousands of years, so it isn't her nationality, nor her parents'. It's an ethnicity. So her accomplishments as an ethnic Assyrian activist should still be noted since those would be true whether or not she is an American by nationality. I am also happy to re-add the stub tags that other users removed (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atour_Sargon&diff=974200341&oldid=974163585) if that's a way to remedy this. I feel like that's a good solution considering the fact that the article is just as, if not more content-heavy and source-heavy than many stub-class biography articles on Wikipedia. The sheer size and amount of sources in the article show that it should exist in some form at per WP:GNG, so perhaps a stub tag is the way to do that. All in all, the subject of the article is discussed by many reliable/secondary sources for several different reasons, including sources with a national scope and ones where she is the sole subject or a significant subject of the source. Even if it's an "insignificant position," the amount of coverage she gets, both for reasons related and unrelated to the position, prove it should exist as per WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Furthermore, the article has more content and sources than many stub articles that are allowed to exist on Wikipedia. For all these reasons, the article most certainly meets notability guidelines as per numerous Wikipedia policies, including WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, WP:BLP1E. Thank you for listening. Ninos2576 (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ninos2576:, you should stop trying to bludgeon the discussion. Whether a subject meets NPOL or not has literally nothing to do with the number of sources. She fails NPOL because she doesn't hold a national or state level position and hasn't received 'significant coverage. Coverage relating to politics amounts to trivial mentions in coverage of Lincolnwood local elections. After looking at the sources, it's pretty clear she doesn't meet GNG, not for politics, and not for activism. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 11:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am sorry, but I don't know what is meant by bludgeon in this instance. I feel as if though the article meets notability guidlines as per several Wikipedia policies (see my previous comment), so I mentioned all of the reasons and responded to other people's concerns about this. At this point, it's becoming repition on both sides, as I have mentioned before that it isn't just the quantity of sources but rather the quality (see the Chicago Tribune point), the fact that she's at the center of many of them (the interviews/speeches, The Assyrian Journal articles, and the meetings with Schakowsky/Lightfoot/Biden point), and the fact that her political career, even if "insighnificant," deserves a spot on Wikipedia due to its combonation with her other accomplishments, for which there has been a lot of coverage relative to other stub articles on Wikipedia. My proposal to make this a stub article has never been responded to either, so I feel as if though that's the best solution because it allows the article to exist as per the fact that it meets WP:GNG while still acknolwedging that there is a lot of work to be done. My reasons for why it meets WP:NPOL are above too. Thank you. Ninos2576 (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ERequirements

ERequirements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage per WP:N. The official website doesn't exist. SL93 (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find any sources for notability. It's mentioned in a few spots, but its barely a mention. There domain is for sale, not a good sign. I'd say merge into UML but there are no sources.   // Timothy :: talk  17:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 17:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Mountain (2012 film)

The Mountain (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film with no independent reviews found during a WP:BEFORE search. Tagged for notability for almost 8 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July Fourth Toilet

AfDs for this article:
    July Fourth Toilet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable musical band. Reads like a promotional piece. References do not confirm notability/are not reliable sources. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment the first two sources are both interviews, which are specifically precluded under WP:NBAND - except for ... publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves. This just leave the nine-line review in the monthly(?) round-up of Scram magazine, which I'm not convinced is enough to demonstrate SigCov. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 17:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Lost Choices

    The Lost Choices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    article of non notable film written by the director. RZuo (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW keep, and a total lack of WP:BEFORE was demonstrated. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Adopt Me!

    Adopt Me! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Per Roblox talk page. MaxandRubyPeppaBlueyCuriousGeorgeFan2.0 (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because those games don't have the same coverage. You are comparing apples to oranges here. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's like saying "This person is innocent of a crime, but should go to prison, because there are so many wrongfully convicted in prison." ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 19:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's clear that a straight-up delete isn't happening, and that's really all AFD needs to decide. If people want to do a merge/redirect, that conversation can continue on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Arduino IDE

    Arduino IDE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No claim of notability. Sources are self-published with no in-depth coverage. Nreatian (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    *Keep - Somone did not bother to do a book search before nominating this. ~Kvng (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy keep: I actually have this installed.   // Timothy :: talk  17:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: My main concern here is the WP:CFORK thats going on with Arduino#Software and question how nom's WP:BEFORE did not pick that up or mention it here. Oh .. I notice on article talk page this has copied content from the original Arduino article without really following Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. ( Unbelievably checking Inchicore railway works last night I realized I had plagiarized the the initial version of that myself without fully giving prescribed attribution and was back fixing that).Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Soft delete or redirect or possibly keep. If kept the content fork with Arduino must be resolved, attributions properly given possibly content copied from Arduino. A soft delete appropriate as the IDE may become WP:DUE in the Arduino article (it isn't currently) and because its a different sort of entity in its own category and a sustainable article in its own right is I believe possibly. Using a redirect (to section with with possibilies and categories) isn't really necessary for locating the main article from search but it is useful for categories. Choices are really about how the content fork is handled. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect is probably the cleanest way to resolve this. A WP:SPLIT at this time does not appear to be needed. ~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There is plenty of sourcing to have a large Arduino article along with a large Arduino IDE article. "Arduino" by itself is a word referring to the open source movement, the board, the IDE, the foundation etc. Many articles have been written on using the software (i.e. the Arduino IDE). Regarding naming, Arduino (software) might be an alternative to the current naming. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd expect Arduino (software) to refer to software that runs on the Arduino. The Integrated Development Environment (IDE) is not part of that but runs on a separate host (AFAIK). Thus I contend it would be in inappropriate to rename the current article to Arduino (software). I am minded it would be possible to reframe the article into Arduino (software) and have the IDE has a section in that, but that is not where we are at. In all events if !voting keep please identify who will be taking responsibility for resolving the content fork (I should have made it clear I am not volunteering to do that). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm OK with Arduino (software). That's what the IDE has always been called by the "official" developers. You are correct that the IDE runs on a separate host; it produces RISC processor code that runs on tiny processors, which is not in itself anything specific to "Arduino" (except for the bootloader, I guess.)ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll accept that. But unless someone indicates they plan to expand the current article and resolve the content fork it would be better closed as a redirect or perhaps even a soft delete.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Draft-ify. Moved to draft by the article's creator. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    GRIDI

    GRIDI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Promotional article and unreliable sources, mostly press releases. Even the claim "to be the world's largest MIDI sequencer by some musical technologists" is a circular reference from the company's own press release. No claim of notability. Nreatian (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Dayton

    Robert Dayton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Blatant promotional article. No references to attest for notability. First two references are actually links to an online shop selling his art. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Upon further inspection I've noticed that the creator of this article also uploaded the subject's picture, the description of which reads "I took this picture of Robert Dayton". There has been no COI or paid editing disclosure by the author of the article - it was directly pushed into the mainspace. So unless someone who states they had taken a picture of someone in what appears to be a bedroom as not having a COI, then we are dealing with a violation of WP:COI and possibly undisclosed paid editing. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete GNG fail. I removed several sources that did not mention the subject. A search found next to nothing. As an aside, I do not think this is paid editing; it looks like run of the mill self promotion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I am the author of this page. This is the first page I've ever created, and is definitely not paid editing! I'm currently in the process of editing text for neutrality and also to add additional citations. This person is an important figure in the Canadian underground scene and deserves a wikipage. --PoussinChevre (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain your connection to the subject given that you have stated here that you took a photograph of him in what appears to be a private residence? Nearlyevil665 (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @PoussinChevre: Wikipedia is entirely based on reliable sources written by others in above-ground reputable publications. We can have articles on people from the "underground scene", but they need to have been noticed extensively in the above-ground scene.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I know the subject because we're from the same town - I felt he was a worthwhile subject for my first wiki page. However, I see now that I published too early - hopefully my edits will pass muster!--PoussinChevre (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ::@PoussinChevre: Taking credit for a photograph made in what appears to be the subject's bedchambers suggests more than simply "being from the same town". While it is perfectly fine to write about subjects you are connected to, you are strongly encouraged to go through Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation and allowing third-party review instead of publishing new articles directly. More info is available on WP:COI. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Ah! This is very helpful - thank you. Am I still able to submit edits for reevaluation or should I just pack it in and head over to Articles for creation?--PoussinChevre (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My first instinct is to suggest to post all strong and meaningful references that you believe suggest notability of the subject straight here as a comment, but I will let more experienced users suggest the best course of action. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Use the article talk page for suggestions. The Afd isn't really the place for COI discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I have not been able to find enough to support our notability requirements for WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. There is one article that is an interview and therefore a primary source which does not count towards SIgCOV in RS, and another article that is a human interest story, rather than a critical review or analysis of his work. Netherzone (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform for promoting ones career.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Needs work but consensus to keep. Tone 17:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Post–Turing machine

    AfDs for this article:
    Post–Turing machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article reads more like a research paper than an encyclopedia. Extensive clean-up is required to save this article.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Per WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP and WP:MANYLINKS because the article has 253 items linking to it (in all namesapaces) and 220 of those are from articles. Also, the content of the article is included on a non-media-wiki wiki with the statement "This article's content derived from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia (See original source)," found at this Infogalatic article. I noticed that the nominator tagged the article with the "advert" template (I agree that it reads like a research paper, but I have found no promotional material within the article), and 3 minutes later made this deletion request. The article definitely needs extensive cleanup for tone, but this can't happen if the article is deleted. I feel like applying the "research paper" template and giving contributors time to make the edits would be far more appropriate. I also noticed that the creator of the article wasn't notified about the deletion nomination, so I will be doing that shortly. Thanks, KnowledgeablePersona (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Without looking at any other issues yet, I'll say that it's only 211 links once redirects and non-mainspace are eliminated, and most of those are from a navbox template. A search for insource:"Post–Turing machine" in mainspace reveals 29 matches (this matches hyphens too), some of which are simply "See also"-type links, so it's really a much more modest total than you're claiming. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for notifying the author of the article. My apologies!Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Turing machine. This doesn't seem to be a term that's in use (at best I found some lecture notes; Google Scholar gives zero). The history of the Turing machine is somewhat convoluted, including improvements from Post, which seems to be the gist of what's here, so maybe it's a WP:POVFORK in order to try to include Post's name in what's typically just called a "Turing machine" to give him more credit. But what's here is overly technical and goes well into WP:OR territory. In any case, what's here cannot stay. I wouldn't really be opposed to a delete either, but in case there's anything in here worth saving/merging, I wouldn't mind skipping that part. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but trim down. Much of the examples section is unreferenced. There seems to be a fair number of references to this work and some people have used this model for their work. Turing machine is already enough and trying to merge it in there would lose some of the history. It does seem to get mentioned quite a bit for example a recent monograph Computability Theory, Karl-Heinz Zimmermann. --Salix alba (talk): 16:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I searched in JSTOR and MIT Journals and found things I think are sources, I'm not sure how common the name is, but there are sources that connect Post and Turing. Until someone who is a lot smarter than myself says it should be deleted, I think there is enough sourcing for it to remain.   // Timothy :: talk  17:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 17:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of last words in fiction

    List of last words in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A massive list of random examples of the last things fictional characters have said. Most of the examples are unsourced, and those that are sourced are only using the pieces of fiction themselves. There is no actual sourcing being used at all to discuss the concept as a whole, and I'm not finding any that talk about the concept in any kind of set that would allow this to pass WP:LISTN. This is also FILLED with WP:OR. While the overall concept of Last words in general may be notable, this list is completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rorshacma (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:IINFO. This is just a compilation of trivia, and even restricting to works with WP articles, this list could run into tens or even hundreds of thousands of entries (or more). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom.★Trekker (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - The main article seems to have the same issues, but this variation is even more indiscriminate due to the infinite nature of fictional characters. If the main list is going to exist, it can handle the few actually notable fictional last words. TTN (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is even more arbitrary than I first thought. I thought this would be last words in a book or other work. Nope, this is the last words attributed to fictional characters. This really has so much Tolkien that it seems like it is a manifestation of Tolkienfruft. There is no reason to have such a thing as a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There may be a few fictional last words which are notable, but they can be on the main list. Rhino131 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOTIINFO. No indication as to why these phrases are notable either on their own or as a group. Ajf773 (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I looked at the very first revision, and it contained only one entry I could defend, "Rosebud", from Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane is generally placed on practically everyone's list of most important films. And it revolves around Kane's mysterious dying utterance - "Rosebud". "Rosebud" is widely quoted, in other contexts, like Rosebud (The Simpsons). Scholars write theses about "Rosebud" [16], [17], [18], [19], [20].

      Shakespeare has Julius Caesar say, "et tu Brutus?" - also an iconic phrase, subject to scholarly attention. The phrase is so widely used people may use the phrase who have never heard of Shakespeare, or read Julius Caesar.

      I'd support a list last words that was free of fancruft, and only included phrases that were the subject of scholarly attention. I'd also support a list of last words where the word or phrase had entered our shared cultural heritage to the extent it was used without an explicit reference to its original context.

      Hal 9000's death scene, in 2001, is also very memorable, very unusual. It too would be something scholars write theses about.

      My suggestion? Only words or phrases iconic enough to have their own standalone article should be in the list. Et tu Brutus? would be an example. I was surprised we did not have an article on Rosebud (cultural relevance of Rosebud), or reasonable equivalent. With that restriction this would be a much shorter and manageable list. Geo Swan (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Rorshacma, Shellwood, Deacon Vorbis, *Treker, TTN, Rhino131, and Ajf773:, I threw out all the cruft, and started with a stub, written as per my comments above - a much shorter list of dying phrases each demonstrably notable in their own right. I invite your comments on it. Geo Swan (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is far better. I would not mind if it was kept like this.★Trekker (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we were able to limit this just to the entries that had enough notability to have their own articles, then I would probably be fine to keep it as a navigational list. But, I do agree with TTN that when its that limited, then there is no real reason for it to be split off from the main List of last words article. Though, that article is in just as bad of a shape as this one was before your revision. Rorshacma (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I think applying the same inclusion criteria of only blue links (both full articles and sections of main articles directly covering said quotes) to the main list and merging them both would be a fine outcome. It feels like the main list really should be reformatted into an article about last words. I'd have to imagine there is commentary on the concept itself in terms of of actual documentation of last words as something of cultural importance. But just removing the bloat is a good enough first step. TTN (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC) TTN (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete With the trimmed article, there will be very few quotations that are both last words and so notable they need their own article, and such a fragment of a list is hardly worthwhile. And no, there should not be a separate article on "Rosebud": Citizen Kane covers analysis of how that fits into the film well (or the theses should be used to improve that page or a section within it, to avoid duplication). Surely academic discussion of HAL 9000's last words would fit within that article rather than separately! Perhaps there should instead be a list that goes with Category:Quotations from film more broadly but even then film/fiction quotations so rarely need to be discussed separately from their articles that listing only those with their own articles is not a great endeavor though, and many in the category that do are song or film titles too. AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes links to a number of article sections, usually the better way to present them. Otherwise put the best back into List of last words (none of which have separate articles – naturally!). Perhaps there's a way to establish inclusion criteria to this, but having articles isn't it. Reywas92Talk 08:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reywas92 I very strongly disagree with your comment "...but even then film/fiction quotations so rarely need to be discussed separately from their articles that listing only those with their own articles is not a great endeavor..."

        Iconic phrases enter English's cultural lexicon all the time, and a significant fraction of those iconic phrases continue to be used, and understood, long after many English speakers no longer know the original context where they were coined.

        Just the other day I watched a YouTube video on USAAF bombers. It explained that while the gunners in the (smaller) Luftwaffe bombers gun positions were surrounded by 60 round drum magazines, the machine guns gunners used in big USAAF bombers were loaded, on the ground with a continuous belt of ammunition 27 feet long. The narrator explained that the common idiom "the whole nine yards" often used to expending one's entire resources, all at once, was coined referring to firing all the bullets allocated for an entire mission in one long continous burst. I've heard that phrase used my entire life. I did not know its derivation. As I wrote above, phrases like "Rosebud", or "Et tu, Brute?" are routinely used by people who have no idea of their original context.

        I feel very strongly it is a grave disservice to readers to send them to a larger article when what they are really interested in is the meaning of a phrase. Doing so represents a danger that someone will feel that the explanation of the phrase is off-topic, and trim it from the larger article, without realizing the chaos this will cause.

        Back in 2007, when I was a newbie, and hadn't really encountered anyone with an incurable urge to merge, I started an article on the phrase "There's a sucker born every minute". Before I started this article I knew what lots of people thought everyone else knew - that the phrase was coined by P.T. Barnum. When researching the phrase I found that Barnum's biographers all agreed that he did not coin the phrase, that none of the people who really knew him well believed he coined the phrase.

        At the AFD I found a surprising number of participants thought the phrase should redirect to Barnum's article, in spite of all the RS who said he didn't coin the phrase.

        As I said, I had never really encountered contributors who wanted to merge things, merely for the sake of merging before. So I spent a couple of hours studying the results of google searches for where the phrase was used.

        What did I find? About a third of the writers who used the phrase, would lazily say "As PT Barnum once said 'There's a sucker born every minute'". Another third of the writers who used the phrase, (generally the better writers) would say the phrase was frequently attributed to Barnum, without claiming Barnum actually coined it. But it was the final third I thought was the most significant. The phrase had a life of its own, and a third of the writers who used never mentioned PT Barnum, at all.

        More than a billion people learned English as a second language, and are likely to be confused by cliched phrases like "There's a sucker born every minute" or "like tears in rain". If they click on a link to the phrase, they really deserve to go to an article on the phrase. If the mergists had succeeded in cramming everything about the phrase routinely but incorrectly attributed to Barnum into the Barnum article we could have very seriously eroded readers confidence in the wikipedia. If the phrase was changed to a redirect to P.T. Barnum#famous sayings, and some innocent contributor changed that to P.T. Barnum#famous utterances that would result in everyone who wanted to know what the phrase meant suddenly finding themselves at the top of the P.T. Barnum article. That would be very jarring. They could be forgiven for thinking that the wikipedia would suddenly send people to random pages. How would they know there was a connection between some 19th century circus owner and a phrase they wanted explained?

        So, I very strongly disagree with your general premise that iconic phrases, that have a life of their own, that measure up to GNG, should be shoehorned into larger articles. In particular, I am pretty confident that "Rosebud" is regularly used and understood to signify a mystery, by people who are unfamiliar with Citizen Kane. Geo Swan (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        • Who the heck says Et tu Brute without knowing it was used by Caesar? Who the heck uses Rosebud wihout knowing Citizen Kane? That really baffles me, I have certainly never seen that word used by itself without some sort of reference to the film. You're sure building a straw man with Barnum there! That phrase really is known and used outside of the him as a circus leader and I would not suggest keeping it with his biography with the actual original irrelevant to him. But I simply fail to see how you expect to build a list of last words in fiction with an inclusion criterion of having their own article when the vast, vast majority of such movie quotes are tied to their movie alone. Examples of last words in fiction that have meanings or significant content disconnected from the film context and which should have their content split apart are few and far between. Sure, if it's an independent phrase, absolutely create a separate article, but there's not enough of them to maintain this list. Reywas92Talk 19:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to List of last words. There are more famous fictional last lines than just "Rosebud":
    • WRT merging into List of last words - I have several concerns with that.
    • All the entries in List of last words are supposed to be the last words of real people.
    • The List of last words article is, itself, a mess.
      • Lots of entries in that list may be documentable, but are totally uninteresting
      • Lots of entries in that list may be documentable, but lack the context that would make them worth covering. Consider the entry for George V:
    "God damn you!"[31][177][note 41]
    — George V, king of the United Kingdom (20 January 1936), to a nurse giving him a sedative
    Cursing the nurse giving him an injection is a lot more interesting when one knows that is generally accepted that his family and doctor "hurried on" the death of the very ill King with an overdose. The King was not looking for a hotshot, so this may have been, well, murder.
    I know merges of articles on related topics seems so natural to some people that they are mystified when asked to explain them. I don't see it. I don't see why the merge makes sense. I think my rewrite is policy compliant. And I think List of last words is a mess, would require a lot of work to fix. Geo Swan (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say the discussion here could likely be used as a consensus to TNT that article. Combining both stubs and working to define proper inclusion criteria while also trying to set up some kind of structure for actual discussion on the significance of last words in both real life and fiction would likely be the best course of action for both lists. TTN (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - How is this encyclopedic? Why does it exist? Is there a single article from a reliable secondary source devoted to this topic that isn't a clickbait list? Do even the biggest of film buffs care? Darkknight2149 10:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Animal Rescue Sofia

    Animal Rescue Sofia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable organization. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Normal Op (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Has significant coverage in english language. From the article, largest and only non-govermental shelter in the country as unique selling points Arved (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: What article? I don't find that information in the one non-self-published citation in the wiki article. Per WP:ORGCRITE, "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." and "Note that an individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards notability. i.e. each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must be multiple such sources that qualify." None of the citations in the wiki article meet these criteria. And nothing I found with an online search meets those criteria, either. Normal Op (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User Arved, please identify the "significant coverage in english language" that meets the requirements of the Wikipedia policy WP:SIGCOV. William Harris (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yahoo Novinite.com ESCxtra.com Novinite.com DailyMail.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arved (talk • contribs) 11:26:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DAILYMAIL cannot be used, and a link to Yahoo is of no value to me. However, the other links are useful, thanks. William Harris (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Two of the references in the article are from the organisation's website, which is not an independent source. The other reference is based on an interview with a staff member and information supplied by the organisation, all three do not meet the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. William Harristalk 11:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Avail yourself to the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTABILITY - a statement of "coverage in the English language" doesn't cut it. There needs to be significant coverage of the topic WP:SIGCOV and not simply a mention. William Harris (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User Whiteguru, please identify the "coverage in english language" that meets the requirements of the Wikipedia policy WP:SIGCOV. William Harris (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User William Harris I did not refer to WP:SIGCOV; the significant comment came from Arved. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Whiteguru I referred to SIGCOV - that is the basis for establishing WP:NOTABILITY, which is the basis for keeping or deleting an article. You have stated that the article has coverage; you will need to demonstrate significant coverage as per WP:SIGCOV, else your "Keep" appears to have been made on a whim and is invalid (not to mention wasting other editor's time here). William Harris (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep - It's a tough one, but between the Bulgarian and English sources there looks like there might be enough to meet GNG. Apparently this is an organization involved in a variety of animal welfare activities, including operating the largest shelter in Bulgaria. There are several hits on Novinite.com. [21] is the best one, but also e.g. [22] and shorter mentions in seemingly dozens of other animal welfare articles. There's some coverage of its endorsement by Kellan Lutz. There's Sofia Globe, some local tv news coverage, Go Guide Bulgaria... It's not a slam dunk, but there's enough here, combined with enough hints at more sources in Bulgarian (which I do not speak) that I fall on the side of weak keep. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with your assessment, and have withdrawn my earlier delete vote. William Harris (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Luca Gaetani Lovatelli

    Luca Gaetani Lovatelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable subject with dubious claims such as being 'one of the most famous wine producers in Italy', which is backed by a single source (in Arabic, for whatever reason that might be). Quite possibly an article created initially as a promotional piece for the subject's family wine business. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Nearlyevil665 i didnt write that (he is one of the most famous wine producers in Italy) some one else edit the article. i wrote (He is the son of the owner of an alcohol factory in Montalcino, Italy). and his family is Gaetani there is article about this family. and in the article there are sources in italy. and in wikidata i found the family tree of this family and this person. Amrahlawymasry (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    and when you search by his name you will find some articles about him and more of it about his brother and his family → https://www.google.com/search?q=conte+Luca+Gaetani+Lovatelli+dell%27Aquila+D%27+Aragona&rlz=1C1VFKB_enEG607EG607&ei=7StMX_38B6GDjLsP2ZaE4Ag&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwi9p4zKgMTrAhWhAWMBHVkLAYwQ8tMDegQIFxAw&biw=1464&bih=706 Amrahlawymasry (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. As the guidelines at WP:NOTINHERITED make clear, being part of a notable family is not enough to justify a Wikipedia page. For this page to remain, it would be necessary to show that Luca Gaetani Lovatelli has had significant coverage as an individual person. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - All of the articles in Italian (and one link is dead) are death/suicide notices, or articles about about his death. There do not seem to be any articles about him while he was alive. I tried some other newspapers as well and got nada. Lamona (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: All I'm seeing is inherited coverage, nothing SIGCOV that would meet BASIC or GNG.   // Timothy :: talk  08:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Gil Waugh

    Gil Waugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Completely unreferenced WP:BLP of a writer and musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC or WP:AUTHOR. For both endeavours, the claims here are that his work exists -- but Wikipedia is not simply looking for verification of existence so much as properly sourced evidence of importance, such as important literary or music awards, journalistic coverage about his career and/or independent critical analysis of his work's creative or cultural significance. But the closest thing to "referencing" here is a linkfarm of external links to directory entries and the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, which are primary sources and not support for notability. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better references than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. General consensus is that this, while an interesting topic, has not been discussed enough to be notable, seems to be both OR and an essay. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retroactive nomenclature

    Retroactive nomenclature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Not verifiably notable. This essay has been unsourced since its creation in 2006 by an editor who has not edited since 2011, and has been tagged as unsourced since 2007. I came across it while stub-sorting because another editor had labelled it recently as a Stub, which it certainly isn't.

    While the phenomenon discussed undoubtedly exists, there is no evidence that it has been recognised as a named entity, or given this name (which does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, while terms such as "retroactive continuity" and "retroactive inhibition" are included). Google search seems only to produce mirrors of this article, including a couple of YouTube videos of the article being read out by computer, and the option to buy a 92-page paperback book of the article for $67.53 from Australian Amazon, but no other use of the term. This suggests that the term has no notability, or indeed existence beyond Wikipedia. The talk page shows a couple of grumbles about the article from 2010 and 2011, but no-one seems to have suggested deleting it until now. Although there is no inter-wiki link in the left sidebar, Wikidata shows that there is a Spanish wikipedia article ... created by apparently the same editor, in April 2009 - one of his only 10 edits on that Wikipedia, 2006-2009.

    Some of the content, if sourced, might fit into Anachronism, but that article has no mention of this phenomenon (on a quick scan for "nomenclature" or "name").

    It's slightly sad to see an interesting article disappear, but there seem no grounds on which this article ought to be appearing in our encyclopedia. I suggest that the time has come to delete it. PamD 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. PamD 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The strongest argument for deletion is OR, which this article certainly is, given the available Ghits. Google Ngram comes up with zero occurrences. That's sufficient grounds for a deletion. Also the article is also completely unsourced as you might expect, a dictdef at best (if the term even existed outside of wikipedia), non-notable, its examples are a mess, and -- that seems like enough said. --Lockley (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The topic of the article itself seems encyclopedic, maybe it is simply the title that is problematic? I feel like I have come across discussion on this when reading about how people tend to refer to Roman emperors and other historic figures.★Trekker (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is a bit tricky. As the nominator notes, the phenomenon definitely exists (the example that immediately springs to mind for me is Octavius/Octavian/Augustus) and I agree with the comment above in that I think it is most likely notable, even if this term might not be used. The lack of use of this specific term of course makes it difficult to search for sources. Of course, WP:Notability depends on the existence of sources and not whether they are actually cited in the article per WP:NEXIST, and I'm inclined to give this article the benefit of the doubt in this regard (because I too feel like I have come across discussion on this, though I cannot recall exactly when or where). I don't think this qualifies under WP:DELREASON#6 as a neologism, because the article is about the concept as opposed to the term. It might however qualify under WP:DELREASON#7 (Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed). Even then, I am tempted to go with an WP:IAR keep, because I honestly think that the existence of this article improves Wikipedia (even in its current, unsourced state). It might be appropriate to change the title, but I have no suggestion as to what the new title should be in that case. TompaDompa (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • A Google search did actually turn up a few uses of the term that are not from mirrors of this article. These uses are not all necessarily from WP:RELIABLE sources (such as this forum thread where somebody says Back in my day, we called it "hard rock." Hair metal is a retroactive nomenclature. We didn't call it hair metal then, but it sure is called that now.), but I would like to draw your attention to this source, which says We can look back on past actions of others and interpret what they did as an act of self-improvement, but if the concept of self-improvement did not exist yet, can what they did accurately be characterized as self-improvement? (Bochner, 1994) Nevertheless, this type of retroactive nomenclature says something about the attitudes that have prevailed since the beginning of the Twentieth Century. I also found not one, but two uses of the term "retroactive nomenclature" to mean retronym. TompaDompa (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes this is a common thing with the Roman imperial people, they're often known best by a single name but had many during their life (and a lot of the time some of their names were also the exact names of at least one of their relatives, which leads to a heap of confusion, hence why historians tend to stick with their best known name even if its anachronistic).★Trekker (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Sadly, while I initially agreed with TompaDompa comments above - that while this appears to be a concept that does exists, there are examples of it.....and the sort of thing there should be a page on. However I tend to now agree with other editors, the problems is, there isn't actual published discussion of the concept, and this article tends to be synthesis of different examples, with no overall commentary on the concept published. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is an essay with valid sources for each individual cited case, but no source which covers the topic in a general way. While the phenomenon certainly exists, no source has been presented that support its WP:notability, and the non-prevalence of the term "retroactive nomenclature" already has been shown. So it is genuine OR. Changing the page title won't change this, only reliable sources could do so. –Austronesier (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, regretfully. I agree that this stuff is a) interesting and b) descriptive of a real phenomenon, as demonstrated by multiple examples. However, as long as there is no outside treatment of the topic under a unified term, we can't go ahead and collect these examples and assign a name to them. There's some overlap with retronym and maybe some of the material could be treated there, but again that would require someone (not us) explicitly and verifiably making that connection. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ID Africa

    ID Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    UPE article where article creator is now blocked, created for an organization that doesn’t possess WP:CORPDEPTH nor satisfy WP:CORP at all as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search did show this & this but both are not sufficient to satisfy WP:CORP. Celestina007 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Indeed. Looking at all the sources that were chosen to include in the article, many of them share content with each other as well as with other sources. I can find the same cited content appearing under the byline of Opeyemi Kehinde on the Daily Trust site, Ugo Onwuaso on the Nigeria Communications Week site, AwesomeCon on Brand Communications, Raheem Akingbolu on This Day Live, and gnadmin on Good News Nigeria. Some of the sources consist of content replicated on other sites under the byline BHM, which is the marketing company behind this operation. All of this, in addition to the clear PR feel of all these pieces, demonstrates that the sources are all PR-generated material, not independent, reliable sources. Largoplazo (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: WP:CORP and WP:GNG require WP:SIGCOV and the sources in article and from WP:BEFORE show this doesn't exist.   // Timothy :: talk  04:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Rim El Benna

    Rim El Benna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: It sounds like the best sources are going to be in Arabic, and due to variability in transliterating her name, people who can read the sources in the original Arabic are in the best position to evaluate them. Hopefully relisting this for another week will bring some of them here.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. The "keep" opinions rely only on WP:RPRGM, which is not a policy or guideline and therefore not reflective of established projectwide consensus. Accordingly, the "keep" opinions must be given less weight than the "delete" opinions, which rely on WP:GNG, a widely accepted guideline. Sandstein 10:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pritzker Military Presents

    Pritzker Military Presents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:GNG. This promotional article was written by at least three people who work for or are associated with the subject. The article's 127 citations consist solely of IMDb (unacceptable as a user-generated website) and its own website pritzkermilitary.org (which is unacceptable as a primary and a self-published source). A WP:BEFORE search is hindered by the enormous volume of advertising and cross-advertising for this subject, and I was unable to find a single article discussing the show itself or anything that would contribute towards establishing its notability. Per What Wikipedia is not: it is not for advertising, marketing, a means of self-promotion, a catalog or directory, or a web hosting service — all of which this 'article' attempts to use Wikipedia for. There is a mention of this show in Pritzker Military Museum & Library, but I fail to see why the entire series of episodes needs to be hosted on Wikipedia instead of its own website. Even the main article topic (Pritzker Military Museum & Library) doesn't have much coverage. I notice there is even a wikiproject Wikipedia:GLAM/Pritzker to coordinate the Pritzker promotions. Not sure that's acceptable in Wikipedia. Normal Op (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Meets WP:RPRGM: "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), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." as indicated by the lede: "It airs on PBS channels WYCC, WTTW Channel 11, and WTTW-Prime Channel 11-2 weekly." There's a clear lack of WP:BEFORE here, as the first page of a Google search brings up pages supporting those claims. The mischaracterisation of Wikipedia:GLAM/Pritzker is outrageous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: That quote starts with the word "Generally" which you have omitted from your rendition, Pigsonthewing, meaning that isn't an open and shut case. The policy also includes "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone", to which I point out (again) the glaring omission from the article of ANY citation except for those from its own website and IMDb content (mindful that IMDb content can be user-generated). In other words, your argument on the face does NOT solve the notability issue. Nor does it address the WP:PROMOTIONAL nature of the article, especially since it is supported by the museum's own WikiProject. What other organization in the world has its own WikiProject?!?!?! Normal Op (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Chinabank. Tone 17:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    China Bank Binondo Business Center

    China Bank Binondo Business Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article does not meet WP:GNG for WP:N. WP:NBUILDING states "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." From WP:BEFORE, the subject does not have WP:SIGCOV to meet this guideline. References in the article are not WP:IS.   // Timothy :: talk  16:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  16:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge important contents (esp. completion date of the building) to Chinabank and redirect. Add section on the former and current headquarters of the bank at the mother article which might serve as a guide for those who might want to upload photos of those buildings to Wikimedia sites (Commons doesn't allow photos of modern or post-November 1972 buildings from the Philippines where the copyright law has no-FoP provision). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 because it was a copyvio listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over seven days, not because of any consensus or lack thereof here. MER-C 17:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Studio for Interrelated Media

    Studio for Interrelated Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable academic department at a college. Searches show almost no coverage other than from the college itself. The article is basically an unreferenced ad for the department. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note significant text lifted from here. I leave it for someone else to judge whether it's G12. It's currently G11 ish but I haven't had time to look for sources to see if content issues can be fixed. StarM 02:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Fiùran

    Fiùran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article about a band, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claims here are that they won a minor award for independent music that doesn't pass NMUSIC #8 (which requires major awards on the order of Grammys or Junos, not just any music award that exists), and that they've been played and profiled on internet and college radio (but NMUSIC specifically requires national radio networks like CBC Music, and deprecates internet and college radio as not carrying of musical notability at all.) The content, further, is largely not referenced to reliable or notability-making media coverage, but to blogs and primary sources and YouTube videos and the internet/college radio streams -- the closest thing to a strong source here is three different citations to one obscure music magazine which would be fine if the other sources around it were better, but isn't widely circulated enough to singlehandedly get a topic over GNG all by itself if it's the only acceptable source on offer. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have more and better media coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. They've presumably garnered a bit of interest in order to have been given the radio coverage mentioned in the article, but not enough to pass WP:NMUSICIAN. The fact that their music is self-released after four years (whether by choice or because of a lack of interest from commercial labels) is problematic. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Couldn't find anything besides databases, concert sites and press releases. Most of the sites repeat the same biography. Not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Femi Falodun

    Femi Falodun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This is a UPE article where article creator is now blocked, for a subject who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BASIC & WP:ANYBIO. A before search reveals nothing concrete to substantiate or prove notability Celestina007 15:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 17:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nigar Talibova

    AfDs for this article:
    Nigar Talibova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Not notable. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 15:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 15:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 15:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 15:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 15:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 15:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I cannot fully evaluate Azerbaijani sources, but since she's based in Turkey (at least that's what the article claims) I tried to look up for Turkish sources and I couldn't find any. It seems that she doesn't have a notable career to begin with. Keivan.fTalk 22:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no evidence she is notable as a model or as a singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I concur with one of the voters above that there might be an issue with Turkish, Azerbaijani, and English spellings of this woman's name. In English I can find nothing on her band; and as a model she is only present in the typical social media promotions and modeling industry directories. It turns out that she is also known as Nigar Alptekin, and her husband is mixed up in a scandal involving Trump crony Michael Flynn. This article: [23] mentions her briefly as the wife while also explaining that she has gained very little notice as a model or musician (third paragraph from the bottom). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I found the following sources in Turkish (only from major publishers): [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], but these sources are mostly about her going on vacation at X city or becoming a mother, not about her career or anything. In Azerbaijani I found this article about multiple famous Azerbaijani women where she is also included. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 07:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrea Jennifer Shubert

    Andrea Jennifer Shubert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I stumbled across this article by chance while trying to find out when the studio Genetic Anomalies was disestablished by THQ. I added some details from the source that connects the two topics, but unfortunately could not find anything else on Shubert.

    The source linked above and this one are the only ones in the article. Both include only some routine coverage of Play140 and name some very basic points:

    • Her name is Andrea Shubert
    • Shubert's former name
    • Shubert co-conceived Acrophobia in 1995
    • Shubert worked at Genetic Anomalies once
    • Shubert co-founded Play140 in 2009

    Unfortunately, there seems to be no source for the middle name, the birth date, or any other claim made in the article. Most content was unsourced since the article's creation in 2009. WP:GNG does, therefore, not seem to be met and the article should be deleted. Per WP:XY, possible redirect targets are Acrophobia and Chron X, but neither is better than the other. IceWelder [✉] 15:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 15:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 15:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 15:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Neeraj Gupta (journalist)

    Neeraj Gupta (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Appears to be a promotional pieces about a non-notable journalist. The sources present in the article as well as a before search only yields results with barebones passing mention of the subject that fail to meet the requirements of either WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 15:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theories

    Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Propose redirecting to Natural-born-citizen clause#Kamala Harris. You should really see the talk page of the article for context, but I'll try to sum up as best I can: this is a WP:FRINGE legal theory (/ conspiracy theory) best dealt with in the context of the constitutional clause involved. A standalone article shows WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE coverage of the fringe theory.

    Others on the talk page have favored such an approach. We floated John C. Eastman#Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theory or Kamala Harris as possibilities, but I was convinced that Natural-born-citizen clause#Kamala Harris is the best choice, since that article also lists people in similar situations.

    Finally, I do not see any need to merge anything from this article. Coverage at my proposed section is proportional and adequately searched. I'm only not proposing outright deletion since the title will remain a helpful search term for readers. BDD (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge There is no ongoing coverage. Right-wing lawyers have long argued that the Citizenship Clause of the U.S. constitution does not apply some or all children of aliens in the U.S. The theory predates Harris and in fact was the official U.S. government position for the first thirty years after the clause was enacted. There is no need to duplicate coverage of this theory in an article about Harris. TFD (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Obviously meets WP:GNG. KidAd talk 18:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge For John C. Eastman, this may be his greatest claim to fame. It certainly bears mentioning in the article on Donald Trump's racial views. However, I don't think it has much of a place merging into Kamala's page, personally; it's not factual, and it does not reflect her, unless we wish to simply note further how much of a natural born citizen she is. "Birtherism" about Barack Obama was a massive and entirely unsubstantiated phenomenon, but it must have a page because of how major it was. Even among more fringe Republicans and Trump supporters, I don't believe these Harris theories have any hold. I support merging it into John C. Eastman's page, or maybe into Kamala's, but not keeping the page. PickleG13 (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • How would this be "racial views". Wouldn't that be more like Trump's legal view / citizenship views / constitutional views ? The issue is whether Trump thinks a fetus inherently owed SANGUINIS regardless of where they are born, still being owed supplemental SOLI by the US. That is purely an issue of nationality, not race, and would also apply to a "white" child with jus-soli citizenship rights from England or Norway or Russia who is born in the US. 64.228.90.251 (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This particular bit of fringe nuttery has not achieved significant coverage among sources, so no enduring notability. May be adequately dealt with in the appropriate article (John C. Eastman, Racial views of Donald Trump). Neutralitytalk 18:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - this information is sufficiently presented at John C. Eastman#Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theory and Natural-born-citizen clause#Kamala Harris. The subject is a fringe legal theory does not merit its own page. Reliable sources stopped covering this less than a week after Eastman published his opinion. --WMSR (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as proposed - the target section already covers this in as much detail as Wikipedia needs to, and with appropriate context to related instances of the same conspiracy theory. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not much more to say than "people are racist and wrong" Reywas92Talk 19:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as proposed This is not a genuine controversy, just the fringe views of a publicity-seeking hack in Newsweek. Does not deserve a standalone article.,P-K3 (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I don't know who would actually search this up on own. Makes way more sense to have a subsection in her article; maybe add a sentence on her article saying someone said it, but its wrong? ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 23:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, with no redirect as this is not a likely search term. The basis of the article is Eastman's debunked op-ed in Newsweek that received almost no significant support, even by consevative legal scholars. No serious legal pursuit of the claims have been made in the courts. As such, giving the idea this amount of attention is undue weight to a fringe viewpoint. As to notability, there were several sources devoted to debunking, but the coverage was so brief that WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on "not a valid search term": since this page was created on 14 August, it has had an average of 1,000 page views per day, with a peak over 4,000 and gradually trailing off. The threshold we commonly use in redirects for discussion for determining if a title is useful as a search term is one or two daily page views. This title is clearly useful as a search term; arguments to the contrary are wrong by three orders of magnitude, and I'll also remind everyone that notability is not temporary. The only really valid discussion here is whether this should be a standalone article, or to which article this title should redirect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I largely agree, which is why I favor redirecting (though I would not be opposed to deletion as a second choice), but page views for an active article and page views for a redirect is very much apples-to-oranges. I expect those numbers to plummet regardless of this discussion's outcome, though probably not as low as 1-2 per day. --BDD (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as proposed seems like a fair compromise. This article has been nothing but trouble since its inception.--Woko Sapien (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Everything and anyone can have tons of conspiracis pushed on them these days, I see nothing here that's not run of the mill. ★Trekker (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep it is undergoing a rename discussion as the issue of whether or not she is a "natural born citizen" is an object of discussion (media posed it to president, president commented, media reacted to president's comment) regardless or whether or not we choose to focus on the media's calling it a "conspiracy theory" to discuss whether or not one would be a jus soli 'natural born citizen' of the United States if you are born with jus sanguinis citizenship of Jamaica via your father. A much bigger deal is clearly being made of this than that silly thing with Ted Cruz, she's a VP candidate so it deserves it's own article just like Obama's does. It just really needs a rename because there aren't any actual notable "conspiracy theories" like with that "he wasn't even born in Hawaii, they faked the birth cert" silliness done with Obama. There is no notable "faked birth cert, she wasn't born in California" stuff with Kamala (despite what media misusing 'conspiracy' leads people to assume) but rather what seems to be whether "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in Fourteenth Amendment excludes who already inheriting jus sanguinis citizenship from a parent (you touch your parents' DNA prior to touching the soil) or if being subject to another nation's jurisdiction first would prevent it from applying. The Wong Kim Ark case seems to keep coming up. I don't fully understand the "but Kamala's parents weren't permanent residents when she was born" thing because I don't think WKA's parents were permanent residents either, weren't they just here on whatever the equivalent of a work visa was in 1898? Also nobody seems to be bringing up the precedent for that in circuit court with Look Tin Eli in 1884 or "Ex parte Chin King and Ex parte Chan San Hee" in 1888. Of course the omission of 1873's Slaughterhouse Cases supreme court case is even more glaring. 64.228.90.251 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    comment I don't agree with Maile's trying to axe a disambig page, as there are certainly non-Obama uses of the term even if his is still the most prominent topic. Certainly not as a means of presupposing the deletion of this Kamala Harris birtherism article. The only reason not to have birtherism (disambiguation) is if birtherism itself expands from a redirect into that disambig, instead of being an Obama conspiracy redirect. Our and the media's lumping the Kamala objections in with Obama's ("conspiracy") seems racist because there hasn't been any "Kamala wasn't born in California" whispers like there were "Barack wasn't born in Hawaii" ones. That's why the Obama memes deserve to be called CTs while the Harris memes do not. There are entirely different forms of "birther" arguments for the two: BO was "was he born here?" whereas KH is "does 14th amendment apply to those who are already inherently subjects of Jamaica?" I would say the reason the Kamala objection needs an article while McCain's objection does not is because it's already gotten far more exposure than McCain's dilemma ever did throughout his entire campaign. 64.228.90.251 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is, in fact, not undergoing a rename discussion. I waited for the RM to close before nominating. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole issue is the politics of distraction, which seems to be the norm in every election now. The same issue came up with John McCain 2008 presidential campaign#Eligibility, and he was national hero. In his case, the mention of it did not merit its own article, but is one lone section in the article about his Presidential campaign. — Maile (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Omar Alberto Rupp

    Omar Alberto Rupp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This article fails WP:GNG, as the subject is notable for only one event. This content could easily be merged into the ARA Narwal article. Lettlerhello 15:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 15:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 15:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 15:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Digital strategy

    AfDs for this article:
    Digital strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This poorly sourced article is a rambling essay about nothing much. It disguises its banality in a bewildering fog of marketing buzzwords. Most of the sources are blogs and/or seem unrelated. Although I can find hits for the phrase "digital strategy" it is difficult to determine if they are related because this article is so vague and confusing and, frequently, so are those hits. Reyk YO! 14:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mayfield Mall

    Mayfield Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    An extinct mall turned into a private office complex. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings.   // Timothy :: talk  03:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. (I've also brought this article closer to where I'd have it now if I'd made this for DYK this year, not 2015, with additional citations and references.) While this particular center falls below the suggested gross leasable area threshold, I believe the property has enough notable media coverage (some of which I've been able to add in the new citations), and I believe it passes GNG because of its claim to being the first enclosed and carpeted center in the US (I don't buy it, but...), presence of the largest suburban JCPenney for its time, and association with Google (which makes it a favorite of news articles talking about mall reuse). The latter is particularly unusual for a mall. Raymie (t • c) 04:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep well sourced and well written article which meets our guideline for WP:GEOFEAT. The nomination mentions "extinct mall" but our relevant guideline refutes WP:NTEMP. Nomination also suggests lack of sources, but in the article I see Bloomberg, San Francisco Examiner, Mountain View Voice, BizJournals. It is also relevant and notable that the mall was rented and purchased by Google. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above, the existing sourcing is more than sufficient to establish notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply:This is an article about a mall. How is a mall that becomes an office complex still a mall? It might be relevant to an article about mall reuse, but this is an article about Mayfield Mall, not an office complex. But in either case none of the sources in the article demonstrate notability for a mall or an office complex. They are just routine news articles. Nothing that supports WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish. notability."
    • " How is a mall that becomes an office complex still a mall?" Because things stop being notable once they no longer exist, right? The sourcing is about the mall and the office complex that replaced it, indicating it as a noteworthy conversion that merits discussion. Knock this off right now, you're clearly disrupting just to make a point and doubling down when it's clear that you're not getting your way. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per Lightburst's reasoning above. More than enough reliable sources. Esw01407 (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Meets GNG, easy to find more sources like this one with interesting info on the grand opening that should go in the article. MB 23:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThe sources above and in the article are all routine run of the mill coverage and announcements. They do not establish notability. Every mall will have lots of routine coverage because they seek it out as advertising. If this type of coverage makes a mall notable, then every mall will be notable.   // Timothy :: talk  02:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Even without the reuse by Google, the article establishes sufficient notability for the mall. Given how it ended, it's easily notable. The nominator in their nomination and subsequent replies seems to argue that a) notability is affected by a thing going away, which is plainly wrong; and b) that we should assume that any outcome that leads to "every mall will be notable" is a sign that we've made a mistake. I grew up in in the mid to late period of the Mall Era. Malls were central to the business and cultural life of American cities. If it turns out that ANY 500,000+ sqft. American malls, current or former, don't seem notable for our purposes, then it's likely that our guidelines and processes are wrong, not that the malls aren't notable enough. Vadder (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Consensus is that the sources found by Calliopejen1 show the article should be retained and improved Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hawthorne Plaza Shopping Center

    Hawthorne Plaza Shopping Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings.   // Timothy :: talk  03:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Seems to be a development that was significant to the city and attracted sustained coverage over time. According to the LA Times (1990), the plaza contributed 15% of Hawthorne's sales tax revenue. Significant coverage includes:
    Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that the article contains additional reliable sources that I think have been unfairly characterized by the nominator. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per coverage above and already in article, sourcing is more than sufficient. Also further asserted in use of the former building in several movie and TV shows. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The above are all routine news coverage that any mall would receive; it does not demonstrate notability. WP:NBUILD says that ""Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Nothing above touches on historic, social, or architectural importance (and significant coverage means addressing the subject directly and in depth). Economic significance is refuted by the fact that it is a dead mall. If someone disagrees, please state which sources show historic, social, economic, or architectural importance.   // Timothy :: talk  03:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: No I don't. Being a movie set for several movies is not historic (especially in Los Angeles) and what social importance does being a movie set for a few days have? What social impact did being a movie set have? Being an abandoned property for 21 years is not notable, if anything it shows how unnotable the mall is.   // Timothy :: talk  04:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Don't be sarcastic, I gave you an honest reply. Guidelines are not just random arbitrary statements, there is a purpose to them. I see this as wheat and chaff. If we have 2000 articles for American malls (don't know the actual number), but only 200 are genuinely noteworthy, the 200 (10%) will be obscured by the other 1800 (90%). Removing non-notable malls, helps the visibility of notable ones. If all readers see when they look at malls, is open, renovate, close, boring routine items, they will miss the truly interesting and noteworthy malls. I believe this is what WP:NBUILD is going for when it says "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance".
    • Is there some historical importance, such as the malls that were the first of their kind? I'm thinking here of the same way department stores are viewed, every department store is not notable, but the first department stores were pioneers, those have a history that is interesting and notable.
    • Social, a small/average mall in an urban area not socially notable, it's just one among a vast array of social environments. But a mall in a small town may be the center of the community and a significant part of the social fabric, not duplicated in other places.
    • Architectural speaks for itself, there are lots of architectural journals and magazines and if they cover a mall because of its design, then I see that as an indication something about the mall is notable and this can be in the article.
    • Economic, I'd go to the social reason above. A mall in a large urban area is going to make a negligible impact on the economy, even if it makes good money. But a mall in a small town may be a significant part of the local economy, even if it makes a fraction of the money the mall in an urban area does. In the same way as a factory in a city with a huge manufacturing base like Los Angeles or New York wouldn't be notable, but if you move that same factory to a small town, it could be the lifeblood of the economy, if it closed the town would (and sadly have) dry up.
      // Timothy :: talk  04:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    *"Historical": "every department store is not notable, but the first department stores were pioneers." So by that logic, Bon Marche in Paris is notable because it was a first, whereas Kohl's, Burlington, and J.C. Penney aren't notable at all because they weren't the first of anything nor did they pioneer anything.
    "separating the wheat from the chaff.... helps the visibility of notable ones." That's like saying that a musician who never entered the Hot 100 (for example The Forester Sisters, which is a WP:GA) should be deleted so that an article on, say, Maroon 5 or Metallica can have its visibility helped, whatever that means. Because by your standards, the Forester Sisters were just a "routine" band who routinely got together, routinely released singles and albums, routinely got reviews from routine music reviewers, and routinely broke up like most other bands do.
    "it's just one among a vast array of social environment". So by your logic, Northland Center is notable because it was one of the first and a "pioneer", whereas literally every other mall in Metro Detroit is "just one among a vast array" and therefore not notable. Not even the one that had the very first American Eagle Outfitters in it, huh? Because it's in a mall that's "just one among a vast array" by not being notable in any other fashion.
    "Architectural speaks for itself". Not every structure has to be architecturally notable. Again, I guess that means that Forest Fair Village is just another run-of-the-mill, routine mall that routinely got built and routinely died because it didn't have anything significant from a structural standpoint.
    " A mall in a large urban area is going to make a negligible impact on the economy, even if it makes good money." How much is non negligible by your standards? Is Colonial Plaza no longer notable because it got torn down? Rolling Acres Mall is not notable because it didn't make enough money and failed?
    If you contrast Tri-City Pavilions with other GA-class mall articles like Colonial Plaza or Forest Fair Village (again, both of which are GAs), then you will see that the scope of coverage is exactly the same. But by your standards, not notable because they're "routine", "not historical", and their removal will "help the visibility of notable ones", whatever the hell that means. Wikipedia does not have a limited amount of storage space so it's not like there's a pressing reason to "separat[e] the wheat from the chaff". Again, that's like saying that lesser-known, defunct bands should have their articles deleted, or that canceled TV shows should have their articles deleted to "increase the visibility" of currently-airing shows. Are The Forester Sisters "chaff" because they're "routine" and no longer active? Is Lonestar "chaff" because they haven't had a hit single in years? Is Joe Diffie "chaff" because he's no longer alive? Is Colonial Plaza "chaff" because it was torn down? Is Rolling Acres Mall "chaff" because it was torn down? You seem to be concocting an utterly absurd and overly narrow view of notability that in no way lines up with WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply First, these are not my standards. I am discussing it from the guidelines.
    The WP:NBUILD is not an all of the above requirement. Le Bon Marché may (I haven't looked) have importance architecturally or historically. JC Penny may be notable due to social or historic reasons, even though it is failing economically and their store (as far as I know) have no architectural importance. This will be reflected in the sources.
    If something is important architecturally it will be covered by architectural journals and magazines, or by articles from historical preservation societies. The same is true about economics; if something is economically significant it will be reflected in the sources. I don't have a standard, WP:NBUILD is a standard and it requires significant coverage showing why something is "worthy of note". The comparison of musical groups or television shows to shopping malls is Apples and oranges, they are entirely different and have different standards of notability. Much of the rest of your reasoning is simple WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
    When you attempt to get personal with comments such the ones above, you're only showing emotion that betrays the weakness of your reasoning and evidence.   // Timothy :: talk  05:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The sources that Calliopejen1 presented above show that there is pretty significant coverage for this topic. I disagree with the nominator that "If all readers see when they look at malls, is open, renovate, close, boring routine items, they will miss the truly interesting and noteworthy malls." Notability is not assessed in relation to other subjects, and openings, renovations, and closures are not necessarily "routine". These sources show that there's some pretty specific coverage of this mall in third-party reliable sources, which is enough to meet WP:GNG. Just because a mall is dead does not mean that it automatically becomes insignificant - see WP:NOTTEMPORARY.
      Further, I'm not convinced that this automatically fails NBUILD. According to WP:NBUILD, "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The requirement is that such buildings need significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. Historical, social, economic, or architectural significance is an ancillary, and will be demonstrated by whether the topic meets the GNG. epicgenius (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: None of the sources provides any evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD. It's all routine coverage or promo pieces. You could find articles like these for every single mall. These sources show that this was just an average mall; a number of people have looked and none have come up with a single source that shows this mall has historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. It was so completely average that even when some people tried to revive it, the plans failed.
    Source assessment table:
    Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
    "Hawthorne Plaza". The Daily Breeze. Yes Yes No Dead Link ✘ No
    Construction Under Way at Hawthorne Plaza Site". Los Angeles Times. Yes Yes No Dead link ✘ No
    Jeff Arellano (October 2, 2005). "Hawthorne Mall: Hawthorne California". Yes Yes No It's a simple blog entry on a site about Dead Malls. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    Williams, J (30 June 2014). "Watch: Exploring the Spooky Abandoned Hawthorne Mall". Yes Yes No One paragraph promo about "Tom goes inside the abandoned Hawthorne Plaza mall" Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    Hernandez, Miriam (19 November 2014). "Hawthorne staging comeback with outlet mall". KABC-TV. Yes Yes No Short routine coverage about a possible plan to become an outlet mall. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    Mazza, Sandy (18 February 2016). "Ambitious new plans emerge for abandoned Hawthorne Plaza mall". Daily Breeze Yes Yes No Dead link ✘ No
    "Hawthorne Happenings March 10, 2016". City of Hawthorne. 10 March 2016. No Financial interest in tax revenue No It's a city community events calendar page No It says nothing about the mall ✘ No
    azza, Sandy (12 February 2018). "Makeover of decrepit Hawthorne Plaza Mall canceled again". The Daily Breeze. Yes Yes No Dead link ✘ No
    This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
    Source assessment table:
    Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
    Kowsky, Kim. "YOU ARE HERE Reaching Out to an Ethnically Mixed Clientele: [South Bay Edition]." Los Angeles Times Yes Yes No Routine coverage any mall would receive. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    Gnerre, Sam. "SOUTH BAY HISTORY: Hawthorne Plaza." Daily Breeze Yes Yes No Routine coverage any mall would receive. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    Sandell, Scott. "Hawthorne Plaza Shops Around for a Way to Survive Slump Retail...Los Angeles Times Yes Yes No Routine coverage any mall would receive. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    Glover, Kara and Anne Rackham. "Hawthorne Mall Faces an Uncertain Future." Los Angeles Business Yes Yes No Routine coverage any mall would receive. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    Mazza, Sandy. "Hawthorne Mall Stalls Over Housing." Daily Breeze, Oct 10, 2010. Yes Yes No Is not about the mall. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    "Shopper's Paradise each Center Tries to Carve its Niche with Own Personality: [South Bay Edition]." Los Angeles Times Yes Yes No Short promo piece. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    Mazza, Sandy. "Mall Makeover Mired in Debate." Daily Breeze, Jun 22, 2008 Yes Yes No Is not about the mall. Its about a stalled plan to possibly make over the mall. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
    There is nothing here that shows this former mall meets WP:NBUILD.   // Timothy :: talk  11:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per sources in the article and above. MB 23:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The sources above and in the article are all routine run of the mill coverage and announcements. They do not establish notability. Every mall will have lots of routine coverage because they seek it out as advertising. If this type of coverage makes a mall notable, then every mall will be notable.   // Timothy :: talk  02:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then let it? Notability has been established for "run of the mill" plazas on here because of having reliable sources (newspapers) and verifiability. Anchor stores are usually the long term leasees of the property. Depending on the anchor store, they might have also bought the overall land. That information usually suffices WP:GNG. – The Grid (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got curious for possible sources:
    • This provides some history of its beginnings. It verifies the February 1977 opening and 1999 closure. [31]
    • This is a blog but it looks like the newspaper articles references can be verified. Note I didn't bother to view anything about its usage as an abandoned site.[32]
    Some of the sources accessed can be removed but note WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I vote keep on the sources that can be obtained. – The Grid (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment for closer: since there is an RfC currently under discussion at AfD about what is considered proper sourcing for determining mall notabiity, it may be worth holding these open until that is finished. If a close is made, it would be very helpful for the RfC if you could explain how you evaluated the sources in terms of notability, routine, run of the mill coverage, and how you feel voting and !voting influenced this AfD. Thank you,   // Timothy :: talk  09:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That was the opinion of a single individual, not a consensus. At ANI the consensus in the close was stated, "You and others suggested, reasonably, that some the guidelines for malls should be developed and clarified, and in fact constructive discussion about a potential WP:SNG is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC on shopping malls and notability guidelines.". Let the closer have all of the information and they can decide. There is no hurry to close these only to have them reopened at DR as a result of the RfC.   // Timothy :: talk  20:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. General consensus shows that Korean sources are available and should be incorporated into this article. (non-admin closure) ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 06:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    National Tax Service of South Korea

    National Tax Service of South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The page is not notable and has no sources. It currently only has 1 sentence and serves no reason to be kept. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Of note is that the article was expanded and sources were added on 21 August 2020 (UTC).
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 15:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A1 B-boy Sasa

    A1 B-boy Sasa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable dancer with non-verifiable claims to being "the first B-boy hip-hop dancer", "retired having never lost a B-boy battle" or "helped push B-boy breakdancing into the mass media as hip-hop". Written like a promotional piece. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pokhara Industrial Estate

    Pokhara Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Reviewed under new article curation / NPP. No indication of wp:notability. No GNG suitable sources given and I couldn't find any. No SNG basis. Appears to be a small industrial park. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete: Fails WP:GNG. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ean Golden

    Ean Golden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    BLP notability and sourcing issues, reads like PR Acousmana (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The reference isn't Mixmag, it's www.remixmag.com: and it's an article written by the subject of this AfD. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked said refs before deleting, none were suitable WP:RS cites for a BLP article. Acousmana (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It confirms he wrote for them so is an acceptable reference for that.Also being a near-orphan has got nothing to do with notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    it's a nothing source, simply not usable in this instance. Acousmana (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Consensus is that the publication is notable, and of note is that no participants here have agreed with the statement in the nomination that the article constitutes advertising. North America1000 14:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Paletten

    AfDs for this article:
    Paletten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Blatant advertising, lacking references/sources. Gardenchef19 (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. The consensus is that whilst the criteria at WP:NBOX are not technically met, the participants are happy for the article to exist nonetheless. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Laatekwei Hammond

    Laatekwei Hammond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable boxer that fails GNG and NBOX. I could only find passing mentions in sports results, no significant coverage. -- 2.O.Boxing 12:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 12:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 12:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 12:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, very poor article but had a significant career in professional career and was the national champion of a significant boxing nation which passes my view of notability for a pro boxer. --HuntGroup (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. WP:NBOX sets clear criteria that is not open to interpretation. He would have to have fought for a world title from a major sanctioning body (which he hasn't) or at the very least, have held (not just fought for) one of the regional titles listed here (which he hasn't). Whether he's had a somewhat significant career or not is irrelevant if he fails both GNG and NBOX. -- 2.O.Boxing 17:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If winning either the WBA or the WBA European effectively gives notability then I think its only fair the winning BOTH the WBA and the WBA titles is enough to confer notability for me. --HuntGroup (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you mean, you must have made a mistake in your reply. I think you're trying to say you have an issue with the titles listed in NBOX? If that's the case then you'll have to raise that issue at the relevant talk page and gain consensus for any additions or removals. As it stands, the subject fails GNG and NBOX. -- 2.O.Boxing 18:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no mistake. The titles he won are notable. They might not be explicitly outlined in the list of titles on the NBOX page but that is just an error by omission. They simply need to be added. Stop nit picking. --HuntGroup (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not nit picking, its following NBOX. I very much doubt it's an "error by omission". Regardless, as my (and obviously yours seeing as you couldn't find any sources with significant coverage) before search proves, he fails GNG. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. "In accordance with the general notability guideline", Hammond is not notable. It's utterly irrelevant what titles should or should not be listed in NBOX. It wouldn't even matter if Hammond had fought for multiple world titles (satisfying NBOX), if he fails GNG then he fails GNG. Having a title or two added to NBOX won't change that. – 2.O.Boxing 11:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The list of titles on NBOX that convey automatic notability isn't exhaustive or exclusive. Plus in my view he does pass GNG.--HuntGroup (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing conveys "automatic notability". As it clearly states at the top of WP:NSPORTS, An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The key word being presumed. And as it also states at the top of WP:GNG, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Again, the keyword being presumed. I recommend you familiarise yourself with the notability guidelines before commenting at AfD discussions. Saying NSPORTS conveys "automatic notability" means you clearly haven't read them.

    Let's examine the sources:

    • 1 is a passing mention
    • 2 is a passing mention
    • 3 is the only one that gives significant coverage. Per GNG; There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Since this source isn't exactly high quality and the depth is minimal, more sources with significant coverage are needed. I mean, if Hammond is indeed notable, that shouldn't be hard, right?
    • 4 is a passing mention
    • 5 is a passing mention
    • 6 is a passing mention
    • 7 is a passing mention. Yes, this one is about his fight with Witter, however, it clearly focuses on Witter and gives no significant coverage of Hammond
    • 8 is a passing mention
    • 9 is a passing mention
    • 10 is his BoxRec profile
    • 11 is a passing mention
    • 12 is a WBO ranking outside of the top ten (failing NBOX, by the way)

    So in summary, one source has minimal significant coverage, nine are mere passing mentions, one is a BoxRec profile, and one is a WBO ranking. Fails GNG. You need to elaborate on how you think he satisfies GNG.

    @Iitianeditor: would you mind providing some of these multiple references (not just passing mentions, significant coverage is required)? If not then it's a total fail in regards to WP:GNG. -- 2.O.Boxing 17:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Squared.Circle.Boxing: I'm including the websites here 1.https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/20144 2.http://www.fightsrec.com/laatekwei-hammond.html Iitianeditor (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iitianeditor: Lol, The links you provided are record websites. Almost every licensed boxer in the world is listed on those two websites, they do absolutely nothing to establish any kind of notability. Please familiarise yourself with WP:GNG before participating in deletion discussions. As it stands, nobody can provide me with any sources to demonstrate notability, the subject does not satisfy GNG and fails to satisfy every aspect of NBOX. Non-notable boxer. – 2.O.Boxing 10:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - nominator Squared.Circle.Boxing, please acquaint yourself with your responsibilities under WP:BEFORE. Note, compliance with BEFORE can be tricky for some topics - including individuals with non-European names, which are routinely transliterated in multiple ways. If you don't know how to do the extra work to effectively search for RS for a topic then please don't nominate articles on those topics for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geo Swan: I assume you was expecting this, but would you mind providing the sources to establish GNG? As is common in AfD. I'd be happy to withdraw if GNG is established. Vaguely implying that you may have found sources isn't very helpful. -- 2.O.Boxing 21:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geo Swan: No, I mean sources that actually give significant coverage of the subject, per GNG. The sources HuntGroup added are exactly what I found in my BEFORE search; passing mentions or fight results, nothing that classified as significant coverage. I do not claim Hammond fails to meet the "strict" (there is probably around ten different regional titles within each major sanctioning body, most of which do not require even a top 20 ranking to obtain. So the criteria isn't really strict at all) criteria for NBOX, it is a fact. HuntGroup wrote a very vague reply that was clearly missing important information. I shall elaborate; fighting for a WBA world title (which Hammond has not) does indeed denote notability , per NBOX. However, fighting for any WBA title does not. Per NBOX (whether people like it or not), regarding the WBA, only winning (not simply fighting for) a Europe, Fedelatin, or Oceania title is deemed notable (because they are the most significant titles that the WBA have for those regions). None of which the subject has won (as I previously stated, Hammond has not won any title listed in NBOX). NBOX states that, for regional titles, a fighter has to have won one of the titles listed. Hammond has won the Ghanaian, West African Boxing Union (not to be confused with the African Boxing Union, which is listed), WBA Pan African, and the WBO Africa. None of which are listed in NBOX (for a reason). My question to you was; you implied there was something I missed in my before search that denotes notability through significant coverage, please provide the sources. I respectfully ask that you oblige. If not, then as has been established, the subject fails NBOX and GNG. Please aquatint yourself with NBOX, and provide references that satisfy GNG, or I respectfully request you strike your vote, as it will clearly be another unsubstantiated and subsequently invalid vote (not that it really matters, deletion discussions are settled by the substance of the argument, not the amount of votes one way or another). -- 2.O.Boxing 00:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: As per WP:Athlete, there are all these sports and numerous criteria. Some criteria are absolute, other criteria (particularly in other sports) exhibit white privilege. That is fellow is an African Boxer and does not scrabble by his fingernails into the WBO criteria calls for consideration and evaluation of biases. One failing at WBO ranking outside of the top ten does not denote lack of notabiity. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Whiteguru: Sorry, but your comment doesn't really make much sense. Hammond fails to satisfy WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. As I've asked everybody who has "contributed" their opinion, can you provide any sources that establish notability by meeting GNG (NBOX isn't up for debate, he fails all criteria)? Throwing the race card on the table is just, stupid lol – 2.O.Boxing 13:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: As the close has been challenged by the nominator, I am relisting the discussion for another week.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roxy the dog: what policy based keep votes? NBOX isn't even debatable, he flat out fails to meet any of the criteria. For GNG there's only one source with significant coverage, and it's minimal. I don't see how one source with minimal significant coverage along with nine passing mentions satisfies GNG. What am I missing? – 2.O.Boxing 14:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus is keep, as was demonstrated by the first close. The four keep votes above all gave rational policy based reasons that do not agree with you. Please dont WP:BADGER this discussion any more. we already know what you think. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So, basically, one source with minimal significant coverage along with nine passing mentions does not satisfy GNG? Yea, I thought as much. Thanks for clarifying with such a valuable contribution :). – 2.O.Boxing 14:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete quite simply fails WP:NBOX. As someone who has on multiple occasions unsalted pages of boxers who failed NBOX earlier in their careers but then much later met the criteria I'm close to the subject area. Maybe one day but for now NN. It's somewhat binary actually. Glen (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. NBOX might be ok for indicating a cast-iron guarantee of notability, but it's too hopelessly restrictive to be used as a rationale for deleting articles. As a multiple national champion, with regional titles and challenges for the Commonwealth title, the subject has clearly had a sufficiently significant career for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep there's much mention in 20-year old London papers ... the issue here on finding good in-depth stuff, is likely how long ago this was, and that he's from a small very-poor nation, without much Internet back then. Even finding western stuff from that long ago is a challenge, as it's old enough to not be on line, but not old enough to be widely and extensively archived. NBOX is a red herring, and isn't really relevant ... it's more a GNG issue. Nfitz (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: It certainly looks as if his successes have been quite widely covered in the printed press, even if these are not easily accessible via standard internet searches.--Ipigott (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Fredrik Svensk

    Fredrik Svensk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article is blatant promotion (as pointed before by other users), lacks references/sources Gardenchef19 (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep, withdrawn with no dissenting opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Aleksey Kokel

    Aleksey Kokel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails to meet WP:BIO. Artist known locally in his community with no international or nationwide recognition. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: First source is a passing mention in a book that is devoted to Chuvash history. Second is a conference paper held in the region the artist hailed from. Updated comment: I took a look at the Russian sources and a couple of them reference to the Chuvash Republic government site[10][11], which is obviously not a reliable source. One is a reference to a statement commemorating the artist by the National Museum of the Chuchav Republic[12]. There is also another source that is a passing mention (artist referenced to 1 page) in a 420 page book[13]. Four links are dead[14][15][16][17]. One reference is to a catalogue of the artist's work[18]. One is to a open Russian database of artists[19]. That's pretty much what the Russians sources are. P.S @Eostrix: If there is a more streamlined or efficient way to comment with the references and evidence of non-notability please let me know, I'm new around here! Nearlyevil665 (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Being catalogued and being honored by a state government (Chuvashia) are also signs of notability. There are a whole lot of hits in google books for Кокель 1880 (most of which refer to this artist).--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstood. He wasn't honoured by the Chuvash Republic. There were simply references to him on their government website, which was most likely for the purposes of promoting tourism to their region. Those two links are now dead too, by the way. There is no way to confirm what those government website references constituted, but my best guess is that it would be promotional. As for the cataloging, that too is blatantly non-notable. It was for a catalog produced in 1960 for the exhibition of the artist's works. Any artist that has ever had an exhibition could produce a reference to their own catalog of works. There is nothing to suggest that this particular catalog was of any note, quite the contrary. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to "Any artist that has ever had an exhibition could produce a reference to their own catalog of works", as Kokel was dead and buried for four years in 1960 it would be quite a feat (a miracle, even) for him to produce his own catalog for the exhibition.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected it would have taken necromancy for the man to produce his own catalog being dead and all, but I'm still not convinced a catalog produced for what appears to be a dubious local exhibition evidence in support of notability for said artist. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Kokel created significant body of work that was the primary subject of Васильев, В. А (2009). Алексей Афанасьевич Кокель: 1880-1956 : жызнь и творчество (in Russian). Чебоксары: Издател'скии Дом "Пегас". ISBN 978-5-91225-021-7. OCLC 775591819. Vexations (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.cbc.ca/mediacentre/press-release/cbc-greenlights-new-original-drama-feudal-a-raucous-east-coast-tale-of-lust
    2. ^ https://www.facebook.com/FaridYazdani
    3. ^ https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1008903
    4. ^ https://www.cbc.ca/mediacentre/press-release/cbc-greenlights-new-original-drama-feudal-a-raucous-east-coast-tale-of-lust
    5. ^ https://www.theifp.ca/community-story/9136394-around-town-farid-yazdani/
    6. ^ https://www.cp24.com/video?clipId=1008903
    7. ^ https://www.cp24.com/video?clipId=1388940
    8. ^ https://www.cp24.com/video?clipId=1446430
    9. ^ https://www.canadiancomedyawards.org/archives.php?year=2017
    10. ^ http://gov.cap.ru/hierarhy.asp?page=./299/2899/48887/72612/73213
    11. ^ http://gov.cap.ru/hierarhy.asp?page=./5032/11628/46625/74572
    12. ^ http://www.lib.cap.ru/kokel3.asp
    13. ^ https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%90%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#cite_ref-_1ebe5826ac261ff7_8-0
    14. ^ http://interkavkaz.info/image/350_%d0%9a%d0%be%d0%ba%d0%b5%d0%bb%d1%8c_%d0%90%d0%bb%d0%b5%d0%ba%d1%81%d0%b5%d0%b9_%d0%90%d1%84%d0%b0%d0%bd%d0%b0%d1%81%d1%8c%d0%b5%d0%b2%d0%b8%d1%87
    15. ^ http://www.culture21.ru/Page.aspx?orgid=385&page=./54/4042
    16. ^ http://www.cheb.ru/history/street/kokel.htm
    17. ^ http://artru.info/ar/18988/
    18. ^ https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%90%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#cite_ref-7
    19. ^ https://experimental.worldcat.org/fast/1657246/
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 28 August 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 keep. Tone 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Margaret Lindsay Ramsay

    Margaret Lindsay Ramsay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No demonstrated notability other than being the daughter of Sir Alexander Lindsay and the spouse of artist Allan Ramsay. Relationships do not confer notability as per WP:NOTINHERITED. Should either be deleted or possibly merged with Allan Ramsay. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I did a brief search and turned up three sources, which confirmed the birth date and death and the elopement date. If I can find such information almost 300 years after her birth, I think she is likely notable. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: She is notable for the mere fact of having her DOB/DOD documented in secondary sources? Context matters - All sources that do mention her (or her DOB/DOD) establish no significance or notability other than her posing and serving as a muse to her notable husband, Allan Ramsay. Her elopement too would have not been recorded if the notable husband was out of the equation. I strongly suggest a merge with Allan Ramsay, if not an outright delete. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a lot more than her DOB documented in the sources. I've analyzed a lot of articles for AfD, and yes , I think there's enough here. Expectations are typically a little lower for those who have been dead for 300 years. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Previous AfD discussion mentions coverage in Mitchell's Women in Scotland, 1660-1780 and in Barker and Challis's Women's History: Britain, 1700-1850. Can't find these on Google books - can anyone give more info about the mentions there? Tacyarg (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Was kept at previous AfD in 2008, under different title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Lindsay (1726 - 1782). (Can someone please add this as the box which should appear at top of this AfD?) PamD 08:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: portrait is in Scottish National Gallery, a reader is likely to look her up to find out more about her, we have sourced content. Seems notable and encyclopedic. PamD 08:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I found Barker and Chalus' book on Google where there are (for me) three sentences about her that I could see (about Lindsay herself rather than her husband or relatives). This book references "Virgins and Viragos" by Rosalind Kay Marshall where the snippet I see shows an index entry for her under the name Lindsay as a "see also" to her husband's entry. There is a great deal about her in, for example, "The life and art of Allan Ramsay" by Alistair Smart available on the Internet Archive.[38] WP:NOTINHERITED is not a policy or guideline. It is advice as to what arguments are best avoided in deletion discussions and so is somewhat premature when referred to in an AFD nomination. It decidedly does not say that relatives of notable people are not notable or even that they are not notable if they would not have been written about except for their famous relatives. Her elopement too would have not been recorded if the notable husband was out of the equation is an inappropriate argument to be making. As always we look for sources about the person themselves and in this case the sources seem entirely suitable for our purpose. Thincat (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The nominator’s rationale stands. What exactly did she do besides exist a few centuries ago? It’s not like she was the subject of a famous work, so being in a gallery isn’t relevant to independent notability that is unable to be established. Trillfendi (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. She's notable because reliable, independent sources took note of her. Notability is not temporary, and noted people need not accomplish great feats. pburka (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Per Pam and Thincat. Tacyarg (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per PamD and others - notability is just about met, this article is potentially useful, and it's doing no harm (very unlikely to be UPE or an SEO scam after 300 years...) GirthSummit (blether) 15:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Thincat. and also it would be a great help to others to find details about her and i think there is no personal interest as the person died, I suggest to update it properly Onmyway22 (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Commbox

    Commbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non notable upto Wikipedia standard. Coriannakox (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coriannakox (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Darius Saluga

    Darius Saluga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Doesn't seem to meet general notability and WP:NBOX criteria. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Stav Beger

    Stav Beger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable producer. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV scope_creepTalk 21:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus is there must be real coverage to WP:NMUSIC, which is not there. Passing mentions doesn't cover it, and that's all I can see. scope_creepTalk 09:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think so. It looks like PR. scope_creepTalk 20:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beger is one of Israel's prominent music producers and songwriters and responsible to some of the major hits in the recent years. The above mentioned article is in Yedioth Ahronoth, it's exclusively about Beger and it's not pr, there is also almost an hour intreview with him in Kan. Tzahy (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the rest of the coverage, that should be visible for a WP:BLP. At the moment it still fails WP:SIGCOV. Where is the in-depth, intellectually independent secondary sources that are needed to establish notabilty. That article does look PR. Stating he is notable, without evidence isn't ideal. scope_creepTalk 09:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yedioth Ahronoth has a wall, and the full article is unfold only to paying subsribers, just like the NYT, WaPo and WSJ. Tzahy (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So far there is nothing substantial been shown. Lots of conjecture about being notable, but no evidence. scope_creepTalk 11:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deemed university. North America1000 14:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Medical deemed universities

    Medical deemed universities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The deemed university is a type of degree-granting institution in India. There are several engineering colleges, medical colleges, liberal arts colleges, and many other specialized institution declared as 'deemed-to-be-university.' Hence, a separate article for 'Medical deemed universities' seems redundant. It should be redirected to deemed university page. Neurofreak (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there is sourcing that can verify information, there is a consensus that only the Inc article satisfies our criteria to establish notability. As such there is a delete consensus at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    World Orphans

    World Orphans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I think this fails WP:NCORP but it's arguable—hence this sitting in CAT:NN since 2016. There was indeed a 2-page article in Inc about it in 2007: basically, World Orphans did not do its due diligence with overseas partners and ended up out $70k. Beyond that, there's not much else significant I can find. There's this in the Gaylord Herald Times (small local newspaper) and this (maybe an RS, but just a namedrop). I think this calls for a deletion discussion. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm on the fence. Not very notable beyond the Inc article, although that article is not insignificant because of the controversies/issues raised. The article in Gaylord Times, a relatively weak source, reads like a puff piece and Blue & Green (also puffy) probably isn't WP:RS. Maybe a weak keep if the content leans mainly on Inc. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep based on the above sources, particularly the Inc. piece already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep agree there is multiple reliable sources covering this topic in sufficient depth, even if there's only two. - Scarpy (talk)

    18:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

    HighKing has convinced me. Change to Delete Johncdraper (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The INC piece] referred to above fails WP:ORGIND as it relies entirely on an interview with Mr. Wiseman and has no "Independent Content". As stated above, the blueandgreen reference is really a profile about Wiseman and only mentions this company in passing. The HeraldTimes reference relies on interviews with people involved in the company, fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP/GNG. HighKing++ 19:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The inc piece has about four paragraphs of prose so does count for WP:ORGIND imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, littered with phrases which make it clear that the information was provided by Wiseman. For example, how could the author know whether Wiseman was "surprised" or not, or what he "wondered" about, etc. It fails WP:ORGIND because none of the prose is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing++ 10:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Sure, the references are somewhat deplorable, one is primary, but the organisation has both detected and cleaned up fraud in a charitable area were all too many are quick to engage in fraud. Recognise their cleanup efforts. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I'm just not seeing the multiple WP:RS we need to meet WP:NORG. Looking at what's in the article now, guidestar is a directory listing, mlive.com is a college paper article that's mostly about a student, and World Orphans is largely a name drop. The Inc article is a good solid source, but it's just one, and I'm not seeing anything else in my own searching. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. The "keep" opinions don't come close to addressing the sourcing concerns. Sandstein 18:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Walther-Peer Fellgiebel

    Walther-Peer Fellgiebel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails notability standard under WP:BIO and WP:SOLDIER. Also appears to contain a significant amount of WP:OR. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do remember that WP:SOLDIER is only an essay on notability and does not get around the requirements in WP:BIO for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am entirely familiar with the status of it as a SNG, but it has been proven over and over again to be a good indication of notability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 12:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not familiar with Wer ist wer?, but I doubt it's any help in establishing notability. If it is anything like Who's Who (UK), it will include any local councilor, lawyer, association president, and businessman active for the post-war period. It may well also allow people to buy inclusion. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Where’s your evidence for that? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have none, especially since I do not speak German. But one reference in a professional directory will never equal "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" for the purposes of WP:BIO. Even if it is otherwise reliable as a source, an entry of a couple of lines is not "significant coverage" and it is also probably WP:PRIMARY anyway. Plus the "multiple sources" bit is still a problem! —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are making a lot of assumptions without seeing what the sources say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly is that relevant? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Would benefit from some further input
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "currently referenced with six independant sources" is rather disingenous. For example, this article merely references a press release made by WPF on behalf of his match business while this article is clearly about Erich Fellgiebel (see WP:NOTINHERITED) and makes as much reference to WPF as it does to half-a-dozen of siblings and cousins. This article literally mentions his name (and no more!) as one of Erich's children. I cannot see how this can possibly constitute "significant coverage" in published sources.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    KEEP. If only for the controversy surrounding the books he has produced on Nazi era decorations. Dapi89 (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Doesn't meet GNG, BASIC or NSOLDIER. This leaves NAUTHOR #1, #3.
    • I don't see that he meets #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." His field would be military history, and I don't believe he is an important person in this field or is widely cited by other military historians. He himself noted how his work was in ways lacking. He might be in a very niche community, but thats the extent of it. He doesn't meet this point.
    • #3 "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work ... such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work". Again this is a niche community, not something that is well known or significant beyond. In addition, there work is not the primary subject of an independent and notable work. He doesn't meet this point
    If there was an article about the book, it would have a redirect/merge target, but there isn't and I don't know if the book would have RS that would make it meet WP:NBOOK. Again he himself noted how his work was in ways lacking.   // Timothy :: talk  21:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)   // Timothy :: talk  21:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Industrialist"? Do we even know how many members of the board of directors there were at any one point? Could have been literally dozens. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources say he was the head of the board (unter der Leitung von Fellgiebel) Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ian Malcolm (councillor)

    Ian Malcolm (councillor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The subject does not meet Notability (people), and Not a Directory. Local politician without any claim to national significance. Note that "Lord Mayor" is a ceremonial role taken up on a rotating basis by councillors; it contrasts with the role of the elected mayor (e.g. Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan). It is reliant on primary sources. The JPStalk to me 12:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Série Club

    Série Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

    Non notable television channel   Kadzi   (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 13:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 12:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Groupe M6#Television Yet another pointless BFM Lyon Ado article creation; it's never aired a minute of original content and the Groupe M6 article describes it in perfect detail. What we have in the article is pointless corporate information nobody wanting to read a network article cares about. Nate • (chatter) 02:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    African Distillers

    African Distillers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This doesn't seem to be notable since the article lacks sourcing and all I could find about it in a WP:BEFORE was a trivial article about their profits. So, I'm not seeing anything here like multiple in-depth reliable secondary sources that it would need to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Plus, the article is kind of advertish. Adamant1 (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Draftify. Per WP:PUBLIC, significant coverage in reliable sources is almost certainly available, we just need more time for editors to find those reliable sources and add them to the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Large, publicly-traded company in Zimbabwe that produces about 3/4 of the country's wine. It doesn't attract the same kind of North American press coverage that an American or European company would, although I found two American newspaper stories following an import push in 1989: one article from the national syndicate Howard Scripps News Services, and another article from the Arizona Daily Star. I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep this is a notable company, certainly through out Southern Africa, which listed on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange satisfies WP:NCOMPANY --Devokewater@ 12:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Being listed is not an automatic indication of notability - see WP:LISTED. Usually a listed company features in analyst reports but no analysts cover this company. Toughpigs provided two references. The first from the Star Tribune is no good, it simply contains two quotes from a company executive and nothing else, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The second reference contains exactly one relevant sentence - enough to confirm the existence of the company and little else - and also fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Similarly, Bad-patches reference is entirely based on an interview with the company's Director of Trade and has no independent content, also fails WP:ORGIND. I have searched and I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. The best I found was a book entitled Multinationals and the Restructering of the World Economy by Michael Taylor and Nigel Thrift which has a chapter on "South African Breweries Limited" and mentions this company. Multiple sources are required. As such, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This non-trivial 50-page report on the company was just published and is highly likely to meet WP:CORPDEPTH; that it costs US$499 makes that no less true. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per HighKing. Trivial mentions are not sufficient to maintain an article on any company. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Fails both CORPDEPTH and SIGCOV. I likewise see nothing here to meet WP:COMPANY, HighKing is right: WP:COMPANY explicitly says that being listed on the NYSE doesn't confer notability, never mind in the Zimbabwean exchange. Finally, there is nothing in any relevant notability criterion exempting Zimbabwean companies from their requirements. If this subject hasn't achieved SIGCOV, the answer is that it does not qualify for an article. Ravenswing 11:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep - Going to err on the side of keep here. There are a ton of sources (if you haven't yet, use "Afdis" as your search term), but I'm not terribly familiar with sources from Zimbabwe. It's clear that it has a major economic presence in the country, and I think it's just less common to have sources write about consumer products in the same way that's common as in e.g. the US. So it's not surprising that most of the coverage is business/trade-oriented. I'm throwing "weak" in front of keep mainly because I'm not sure about the reputation of these sources, and there seems some potential for basis on press releases and/or qualify as "routine", but here's some of what I see: NewsDay, Chronicle, Sunday News, Business Weekly, The Standard, Business Times, Zimbabwe Independent, Sunday Mail, Equity Axis. It's a tough one. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: This is a large, company traded on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange not the NYSE however I am inclined to stretch the guideline of WP:LISTED. This distiller also has 6 locations. Not Napa Valley but notable. Passes WP:N Lightburst (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP Rhododendrites found enough coverage to confirm notability. Dream Focus 13:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: All distilleries are always notable. Plus when considering Rhododendrites sources I believe this passes notability.   // Timothy :: talk  19:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Whilst there has been a considerable number of submissions, the sources cited relatively late in the debate deserve proper consideration.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No one here is expecting US-standards based sourcing to exist and it's ridiculous to claim we do. Let alone to try and act like articles about US subjects are the only ones that can meet such a low freaken bar as having two in-depth sources about them. Anywhere in the world should be able to meet that standard and it doesn't have jack to do with the US. It probably wasn't people in the US who came up with the guideline in the first place. American's aren't the only ones that speak English. Also, it's totally the soft bigotry of low exceptions to hold Zimbabwean companies to a lower standard then companies from anywhere else just "because Zimbabwe." There's plenty of extremely well sourced articles about Zimbabwean companies in Wikipedia. Including Old Mutual, Ecobank Zimbabwe, Bindura Nickel Corporation, etc etc, just to name a few. Not every damn article about something in Africa should be kept just because voters like you and ToughPigs have a slanted, clearly wrong opinion about the place. Some things, no matter where they are located, are just not notable. That's life, get over it and stop blaming Africans or Zimbabweans because something isn't notable (that mostly goes for ToughPigs, but also anyone else that feels like calling Africa about the level of journalism there. Whatever it is). --Adamant1 (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    One Love (2009 film)

    One Love (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Advertorialized article about a short film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- we look for markers of a film's significance, such as notable film awards or attention from established film critics in media, not just technical verification of the film's existence. But right across the board, the review pullquotes here are all from unreliable and non-notability-making blogs rather than real media outlets, and I can't find any evidence whatsoever of coverage in stronger sources. In addition, it warrants note that the article was created by an editor whose username matches the name of the film's director, thus indicating a clear conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 12:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bruce Atkinson (poker player)

    AfDs for this article:
      Bruce Atkinson (poker player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      There is no actual strong claim that would lead to suggesting this person is notable. The sourcing is not enough to pass GNG and searching for more sourcing does not come up with anything that would lead to passing GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. He is called a legend of British poker in [42], hut it is a passing mention. There is a short bio blurb at [43] but is the site reliable? If he was really a legend, there should be better sources, I am afraid he fails GNG. But I am surprised the sport fans aren't shouting keep here due to some statistic catalogues? Wouldn't he pass some offshoot of SPORTBIO which states that if you touch a poker card you are notable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I randomly came across this article when it was prodded and then I WP:REFBOMBed it to get some verifiability into it, when I saw it was AfD. Note that searching for "Elvis Senior" occasionally finds additional sources beyond just searching for "Bruce Atkinson". This individual sounds interesting, but the current sources probably don't add up to WP:GNG and I'm unaware of a poker-related WP:SNG that would argue otherwise. It would be helpful to have comments from editors in that area, though. Since the European Poker Hall of Fame does not have an article, the only "merge" target I can think of would be London Lowball; there would be little content to merge, essentially becoming a redirect with a mention on the page about him co-inventing the game. Ideally, more sources could be found to validate this claim. —Ost (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was keep; effectively withdrawn by nominator. BD2412 T 00:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Jigme (Kagyu lama)

      Jigme (Kagyu lama) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Fails WP:BIO. No effective referencing. All refs seems to be his. scope_creepTalk 08:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It shouldn't be a problem finding secondary sources on Jigme Rinpoche. He's a significant influence to the Karma Kagyu lineage. I'll appreciate any and all help on this. Thanks! Badabara (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately, I did my a bit of my own research to be sure and I would tend to agree with notion to delete the page. Although in real life he is a significant teacher in the Karma Kagyu lineage, by basic Wikipedia criteria he is not a notable person. He greatest notoriety is by association to the 16th Karmapa, which Wikipedia specifically calls out as not warranting an individual their own page--I wish I could disagree (he is also the brother of another significant lama, the 14th Sharmapa and was a witness to the Karmapa Controversy. He is also an author of several Buddhist books--is that significant?). However, much of this page could be moved onto the Karma Kagyu page under a new section--something to the effect of "Current lineage holders". I would be happy to help make that happen. A Wikipedia location for this information will be a needed for reference for coming additions to the 16th Karmapa and Karmapa Controversy pages. Anotherpinkfloydinthewall (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Anotherpinkfloydinthewall wouldn't your idea require finding all pages of high lamas/rinpoches from all Tibetan Buddhist schools, deleting their respective pages, and adding them to various lineage pages? Quite a task. The topic at hand is "effective referencing".Badabara (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Let’s leave this page alone for the time being and create a “Current lineage masters” on the Karma Kagyu page. When both exist we can see what’s most appropriate (as people fill out this page). We don’t have significant meat on many members of the lineage, but the fact of the matter is that a lineage IS the people—they aren’t two distinct entities. That information absolutely needs a place to live. Anotherpinkfloydinthewall (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      There appear to be enough secondary sources to keep the page on Wikipedia--Thehittite (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi scope_creep and Thehittite I edited the page to include a number of secondary sources. Badabara (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems that the criteria for an individual's page has been reasonably met here. It feels like it would add confusion to establish it as simply an adjunct to the 16th Karmapa or Karmapa controversy areas. spaceis411

      — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceis411 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Now that these additional sources have been added, this page seems fine to me on its own. I wouldn't support deleting it at this stage.Mekinna1 (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks everyone for your comments. I've made multiple edits since the nomination for deletion, adding secondary sources. Please review, and hopefully we can get to consensus quickly. Badabara (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      I should also add that other editors have added sources as well. Badabara (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      This article appears to have enough Independent of Subject references.Thehittite (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Still looks sufficient to me. I think he is a notable person in the Buddhist world. I may have a couple of new references to add in the near future, trying to locate. Mekinna1 (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The reason it has been open for two weeks is because an admin has looked at the article and found it wanting. Most of the references are self-published. The ones that have been added are profile pages, they aren't under editorial control or peer reviewed and are probably invalid per WP:NOT. There is no real secondary sources, that are independent, in-depth and reliable. The only reason I didn't comment up until today as I saw an article in The Times about Akong Rinpoche and thought their might be some link to it here, but not found anything. There is a good para in one book, but its not-independent. It don't believe at this time, that Jigme Rinpoche is notable. It doesn't satisfy WP:BLPSOURCES scope_creepTalk 08:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I respectfully disagree. If you look at the significant sources, they are not profile pages. The following books are not self-published, and are independent of the subject (books on the history of Buddhism, aside from "Heart Advice" which is Buddhist teachings), and reliable:
      Rinpoche, Gendun (2010). Heart Advice from a Mahamudra Master. Norbu Verlag
      Douglas, Nik (1976). Karmapa: The Black Hat Lama of Tibet. Luzac; First Edition edition (1976). ISBN 0718901878.
      Bausch, Gerd, "Radiant Compassion, The Life of the 16th Gyalway Karmapa, Volume 1." 2018 pp. 97-99
      The following articles are not self-published, and are independent, and reliable:
      Valentine, Glen (16 January 2018). Buddhist World. Scientific e-Resources, 2018. p. 271. ISBN 978-1839473623.
      Campergue, Cecile (November 23, 2015). "Gifts and the Selfless Work Ethic in Tibetan Buddhist Centres in France". Religion Compass. 9 (11): 443–461.
      Jigme Rinpoche was sent to Europe by the 16th Karmapa to build Buddhism. Though he may not have been controversial and loud, such as Chögyam Trungpa (he's a monk after all and kept his vows), he probably did more to preserve and carry on the work, and didn't go down in flames. His European seat is still intact. The number of Stupas and retreat centers and city centers that have been build under his guidance is quite large. I think this humble man deserves a page to be developed - it's just a stub page and will require more work. My 2 cents Badabara (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Author of several books with no book reviews, making them essentially non-notable. No real coverage. scope_creepTalk 11:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there no mention in the French press? scope_creepTalk 12:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      He is described in at least 2 books of major authors, one by fr:Frédéric Lenoir (with Robert Le Gall : Le Moine et le Lama, (2000)), the other by fr:Michaël de Saint-Cheron (La condition humaine et le temps; dialogues avec Élisabeth Badinter, Jacques Attali, François Gros, Rigmé Rinpoché; éd. Dervy; 26 mars 2001; (ISBN 2844540783 et 978-2844540782)).--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The French connection does yield some results. In a quick search found this:
      Anotherpinkfloydinthewall (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you Anotherpinkfloydinthewall and User:scope_creep, I have added some information based on these new French sources. I think this paints a clearer picture of his activity and accomplishments. Mekinna1 (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Mekinna1. I agree. The references added contain even more. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you everyone for your edits and input! Badabara (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Relisting comment: Relisting one more time to see if work done on the article yields a broader consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 00:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Ktin, I agree and brought up the same question on the talk page. He is referred to as Lama Jigme Rinpoche in press, articles and books.Badabara (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Badabara, I think I understand now. Perhaps Rinpoche is considered a honorific, and hence is not a part of the article title. That said, I do know of a few articles with a honorific in the title. But, I guess it is good to leave as-is based on that. Ktin (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Right. Though it seems there are many exceptions... check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rinpoches. I'm wondering if in some cases it's honorific AND recognizable name. For example Dalai Lama is Dalai Lama not Dalai. Lama is also honorific. In this particular case Jigme (Kagyu Lama) is less recognizable, and "Lama" is also honorific... So why not make an exception for Jigme Rinpoche for the sake of clarity? Make sense? Is there a guideline for this? Thanks Badabara (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know. I think it needs to be moved to the talk page of the article. scope_creepTalk 14:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was merge to Nazarene Theological College (Australia). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Richard S. Taylor

      Richard S. Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable, secondary, substantial coverage or academic work to help indicate notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      List of salaries of central bank governors

      List of salaries of central bank governors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Fails policies on original research and lists Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Kgaswe School

      Kgaswe School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      The article has been linked to a single primary source since at 2010 and I was unable to find the multiple in-depth reliable sources that would be needed for it to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. As an alternative to deletion the article could be merged or redirected to the article of the town where it's located Palapye, which already has an education section, or Independent Schools Association of Southern Africa. Merging or redirecting this to either one would fit the consensus about how to handle non-notable school articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a copyright violation. A run through the copyvio detector shows that it was copied from the main university's synopsis of the school, which explains the promotional tone. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      School of Creative Studies and Media

      School of Creative Studies and Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      A department of Bangor University - did consider a redirect but the title is so generic it could be mistaken for any similar department in any university. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DTM (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Rajinder Singh (brigadier)

      Rajinder Singh (brigadier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      After having worked on this article recently and brought it to the current state it is in, I am having serious doubts about the notability of the person in question from a Wikipedia perspective. Yes, the event that he was part of was notable, so he can be mentioned there - Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948, or as a commander in the JK State forces/rifles article - Jammu and Kashmir Rifles, but as separate article, I am not so sure.
      As per WP:1E, as everything seems to be about the MVC action, and there doesn't seem to be "significant coverage" of his whole life in reliable sources, 26 years of his life and all of his army career except four days - this article has very little basis to stay if Wikipedia guidelines are appropriately adhered to. DTM (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep (cross-posting from WT:INDIA) I think this is too notable. 1E is for stuff like Prakriti Malla. This brigadier (pass of WP:NSOLDIER right there, btw) played a major role in a major world event. Saved a whole state for a country rather than the other, ensuring a conflict that's lasted to today? Has a postal stamp with his face? Has a village named after him, and schools (more than one Wikipedia notable entities)? Won second highest honour (ANYBIO), and has since received sustained coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (GNG) about his deeds and whether he should have been awarded the highest military award his country has to offer? As I said, too notable. Compare this with the articles we keep on internet influencers and domestic footballers. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      This is exactly what I am talking about; everything about him is only related to 4 days in 1947; and not of his life as a whole. There are just too many large gaps about his life. His entire army life (except 4 days) is missing as well as his early life. We might as well called the article Rajinder Singh in October 1947.DTM (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I am sure the information is somewhere, in the personnel archives of the organisation he worked for, for example. Missing details, which is true of most historical figures, isn't enough reason to delete even if it is completely missing, IMO. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep I think WP:1E does not apply per its second paragraph. While there is not much information about his earlier life, there is enaugh of a legacy related to the person, so there is an enduring coverage. Having a postage stamp certainly indicates notability. Agathoclea (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Though the reason for the notability is clearly the one event during the war, there appears to be plenty of related coverage that has continued over the years. Definitely notable and I'd actually go for speedy keep on this one. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. WP:BLP1E always needs to be applied with common sense; interpreting it literally when the events themselves are very significant doesn't make sense. There is substantive coverage of this individual in several dozen sources, as even a quick google books search reveals. If you feel the need to establish firm consensus on this, DiplomatTesterMan, feel free to let it run, but as I write this you still have the option of withdrawing this and closing as "speedy keep", because no one else has supported deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak keep on the basis of his crucial involvement in a seminal event in the founding of India and the lasting legacy indicated by the stamp (he's marginal for WP:SOLDIER, BTW), but there is no way this article will even get to B-Class on the basis of the material in the article at this point, 27 years of his life are completely missing, and the usual sources for such information on highly decorated Indian soldiers are mute on that period of his life. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Keep per #4 of WP:SOLDIER, though as noted above everything on this page seems to be based on that one event. Mztourist (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep A notable personality in India. Recipient of Maha Vir Chakra, a notable award given to Military officers. His contribution to "Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948" can't be forgotten. Priyanjali singh (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. Clearly notable as a brigadier per WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Daniel A. Ninivaggi

      Daniel A. Ninivaggi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Seeking consensus on a very close case on WP:BASIC. In addition to the usual barrage of press releases, there's coverage in major outlets (e.g., [50], [51]), but it either seems WP:ROUTINE or really about Icahn Enterprises. [52] seems to be about him personally, but I'm not sure if it's reliable. Has sat in CAT:NN since 2016, presumably because the case is so close. I would have considered a redirect, but since he's been an exec at a number of companies there's no clear target. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm sure it's charming, but charming isn't an inclusion criteria. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Cooking with Love

      Cooking with Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Non-notable television film, has no coverage from independent, reliable sources - just primary sources, blogs and fan pages, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 10:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Per WP:NFILM and WP:NFOE. I can't seem to find any evidence of notability. The only criterion the film comes close to meeting is the fact that it stars notable actors. The author of this article brought up that this is Brett Dalton's first Hallmark fim. However, this does not merit inclusion because I don't see how this could have had much of an impact on his career. It's not like this is his first film overall.Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Mahmoud Mohammad Tabrizi

      Mahmoud Mohammad Tabrizi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      New page review: I’ve looked at this BLP several times. There are primary sources, interviews, non-notable awards and other references, but taken all together it does not amount to a GNG pass in my view. Mccapra (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Vijay. Tone 15:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Star Vijay Music

      Star Vijay Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Television channel that does not exist yet, fails WP:GNG. 1292simon (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      The Bay Club at Mattapoisett, Massachusetts

      The Bay Club at Mattapoisett, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      This subject of this article does not qualify with the general notability guidelines. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Vconsol

      Vconsol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      The page creator have added 30 refs. But if we look clearly - it is visible that all of the refs are news snippets from 20 August - 22 August about the software winning a competition round organised by Government of India. The application is even not yet released to common public. Wikipedia is not a news website and WP:1E. Zoodino (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      The Weston Group

      AfDs for this article:
      The Weston Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      The subject of this badly sourced article does not meet WP:NCORP and, even after extensive attempts to rewrite, the article is still an advertising brochure. The previous AfD closed as no consensus for want of participation, but the subject is no more notable now than it was then. My own searches turn up hits for unrelated organisations with the same name, but little to nothing about this one. Reyk YO! 08:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Sukhveer Singh Bhadouriya

      Sukhveer Singh Bhadouriya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      A non-notable politician and fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Zoodino (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BD2412 T 00:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Mr. Moseby

      AfDs for this article:
      Mr. Moseby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies)Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The keep from 2013 was because of the two votes, one stating that 'a character that appeared in 83 episodes is notable', 'keep per' and oh, a clear personal attack on the nom... Sigh. I think our standards are a bit higher now. (Oh, this is also totally unreferenced (outside one footnote to a single episode of the show)... and pure WP:OR/WP:PLOT). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Relisting comment: This discussion was closed on 25 August by User:Awesome Aasim, a non-administrator, as keep. Pursuant to WP:DPR#NAC, I, an uninvolved administrator, have vacated this closure and determine that the debate be relisted for a further one week from today.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      There actually was a lot more for all of the main characters while the program was actually airing. I don't know if it's a thing just with Disney programs or whether it occurs with all kids' TV programs but almost as soon as the program ended, sources started disappearing. Admittedly, a lot of the websites did start reorganising their content but it's almost as if they said "Well, that program has finished, we don't need this stuff any more" and dumped everything. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Highly notable character who was a cornerstone of a highly notable 2000s Disney Channel Sitcom. Sources have become dead links over time. However, the character lives on in memes and nostalgia; and its clear that it had made Phill Lewis's career appearing in dozens of episodes with this unique character. DrewieStewie (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Ideology of Tintin

      AfDs for this article:
      Ideology of Tintin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      This has been tagged for 8 years as WP:OR (the tag was added by User:TenPoundHammer). I sadly concur that what we have here is a OR-ish WP:ESSAY in need of WP:TNT. Google Scholar/Books search show there is no such concept as "Ideology of Tintin". Now, both the comic author and his individual books received good amount of coverage, and so there are few tidbits here and there that could be merged to Hergé, The Adventures of Tintin or one of dozen+ specific books his stories are collected in that are almost all notable (at least I assume so...). Through in most cases, those issues are already dicussed there, making this article a SYNTH POVFORK (for example, accusations of anti-semitic themes are discussed at lenght, with better references, at Flight_714_to_Sydney#Critical_analysis already). Anyway, no, there is no "Ideology of Tintin", and this mostly unreferenced essay is beyond clean up, IMHO. PS. Prior AfD from 2007 was not linked on the article's talk page, but the nom also noted OR. The consensus back then was "rescue by adding references since WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES". Which hasn't happened in a decade plus. Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      San Theodoros

      San Theodoros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      This is a fictional nation that appears in a few strips of The Adventures of Tintin. Unfortunately, the article is pure PLOT with no shred of analysis / reception / significance. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. And before someone proudly displays a WP:GOOGLEHITS results, yes, the country is mentioned in some books like [55] or [56] but unfortunately the discusison I see is limited to WP:PLOT summary or is otherwise limited to passing commentary that "San Theororos is a parody of a banana republic" or such. Whichj does not suggest that we need a dedicated WP:FANCRUFT description if this fictional country, a mention in the first book it appears in, which I think is The Broken Ear, should be sufficient; and at best this could be redirected to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Tone 17:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Superbase (company)

      Superbase (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      NN firm which does not meet WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Article contains sources that are primary, unreliable and not independent of the subject. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Umakan Bhalerao - any suggestions you can offer on making this more suitable per your ojbections? I see you have several pages on schools, which are not quite "encyclopedia worthy" but they are listed. Hoping to find a way to keep this page alive at least for more than the 7 days in order to flesh out additional citation support. Any feedback is appreciated. K67 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Relisting comment: I've blocked EngbotUK as WP:NOTHERE. Ignoring them and the IP, there's not much here. I'm not sure what to make of Cewbot. Do we really have bots telling admins how to do their jobs?
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: A new user's first article, describing a design company and the work that it does. The affiliations of the company and its founder do not count towards WP:NCORP, nor does its appearance in a list of design agencies in their city. The lists produced by the DesignRush agency are wider in scope, but there is a lack of evidence that these have independent inclusion criteria or that these listings are inherently notable. Searches find more agency listings but nothing to demonstrate achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Looks like an obvious advertisement, and the linked sources are also advertisement (just like that, currently ref #2). Notability is doubtful. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Mikhail Pomortsev

      Mikhail Pomortsev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Pomortsev Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      No sources, and nothing that indicates notability DiscoStu42 (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion opened by a sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Ghazi Hur Mujahid Faqeer Arbelo Katpar

      Ghazi Hur Mujahid Faqeer Arbelo Katpar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Does not meet WP:N WP:GNG. There is almost no coverage in WP:RS. The one cited source that comes closest to RS just mentions the person in the passing. Does not belong on English-language Wikipedia. Stefania0 (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was draftify. There is a general sense that the topic may be notable but should be rewritten/salvaged/or split before being mainspaced. Opinions differ on whether TNT and the like appliy here, but most people agree that it should not be in the mainspace as is. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Berber separatism in North Africa

      Berber separatism in North Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      The article is complete nonsense masquerading as a real article while having both WP:SYNTH and WP:OR problems. Characterising normal anti-colonial wars/battles, normal political struggles and normal political protests as seperatism is pushing a far-fetched POV. I can't find in any of these sources a clear mention of "Berber separtist/separtism" or "It started to make an ethnonationalist Berber country", etc. Nothing just tribes fighting colonial forces or cultural activists protesting against their countries (for linguistic and cultural rights). The only separtist movement in this article is the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad who founded a short-lived state from 2012 to 2013. TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Delete This is a massive content fork presenting 100 years of sporadic Berber rebellions against large numbers of different governments as some sort of grand struggle for Berber independence, clearly original research and synthesis. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep or alternative possibility Split into three articles (while keeping Berber separatism in North Africa as short overview/disambiguation page or merging into Berberism) - though i'm also the author of this page, let's use logic to decide whether this is a "nonsense" or an actual topic, which is differing enough from Berberism to have its own page.
      - Rif Conflict in French and modern Morocco By Riffian people (from 1920 Rif War up to modern to Hirak Rif Movement);
      - Geographically sporadic Tuareg rebellions by nomad/semi-settled Tuareg people communities across most North-Western Africa from 1916;
      - Kabylie Conflict in Kabylie, Algeria, initiated in 1963 by Kabyle-dominated Socialist Forces Front and restarted from 1980s by Movement for the Autonomy of Kabylie (the Berber Spring, the Black Spring (Algeria) and minor more recent events);
      Given above explanations, I would suggest creating two new articles Rif Conflict and Kabylie Conflict about specific Berber conflicts (in addition to Tuareg rebellions page, which is to be expanded into full article) in any case, whatever the community consensus on the discussed article in this thread.GreyShark (dibra) 08:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Greyshark09, I'm not opposed to splitting the material, as I think that could solve the issue of presenting it as one long struggle, but a problem is that much (not all) of the material is a content fork from articles that already exist. Zoozaz1 (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Again, you're pushing a "separtist" view of cultural/ethnic nationalism and anti-colonial struggles.
      1."First of all, Berberism page is about ethnic/sectarian nationalism, this being parallel to Kurdish nationalism, Assyrian nationalism, Sahrawi nationalism." Well that's your POV. We should never never equate nationalist movements with each other. It's wp:or and nonsense. Berberism =/= Arab nationalism, Assyrian nationalism =/= Slavic nationalism, Kurdish nationalism =/= Assyrian nationalism =/= Sahrawi nationalism =/= Berberism =/= Arab nationalism..... We're not here to make new concepts and synthesize different ideologies in a single one.
      "Using those examples we can see three main arenas for prolonged Berber/Amazign separatist struggles:" That's the problem you're using hints of nationalism and some separtist movements as a basis for a wide multi-faceted permanent separtist struggle that started from the times of "Tuareg guerrillas". Any reliable sources where an author is clearly connecting these wide ranged topics as a single struggle?
      "Rif Conflict in French and modern Morocco By Riffian people (from 1920 Rif War up to modern to Hirak Rif Movement)" Any sources that connect these different struggles/anti-colonial war in a single separtist movement?
      "Geographically sporadic Tuareg rebellions by nomad/semi-settled Tuareg people communities across most North-Western Africa from 1916;" Any sources that connect these different struggles/anti-colonial war in a single separtiist movement? (why not create an article about Tuareg nationalism?)
      "Kabylie Conflict in Kabylie, Algeria, initiated in 1963 by Kabyle-dominated Socialist Forces Front and restarted from 1980s by Movement for the Autonomy of Kabylie (the Berber Spring, the Black Spring (Algeria) and minor more recent events);" Any sources that connect these different struggles/anti-colonial war in a single separtist movement? (you can develop the already existing article Kabylism)
      2."Secondly, is there an reliable source for grouping those three military/political struggles into a single topic and is this notable per WP guidelines? The answer here is purely technical" It shouldn't be "purely technical". Do you really have a source that connects all of these movements/guerrilas/anti-colonial groups and says that they're all a single "Berber separtist" movement?
      see Contested identities: Berbers, ‘Berberism’ and the state in North Africa,North Africa’s ‘Berber question’) Where is "Separtist" or "Separtism" in the work? I can't find a single word about Separtism in the work.
      "see The Berber Cultural Movement in the Maghreb: Contemporary Issues in Transnationalism);" Can you point where "Separtism" is mentioned in the chapter?
      3."Thirdly, is there a violent and notable Berber separatism movement to execute Berber nationalism? The answer is clearly yes - there are three such nationalist, and often clearly separatist, movements;" That's true but why creating a WP:OR non-WP:STICKTOSOURCE article with copied material instead of expanding the already existing articles (Berberism, Kabylism) -TheseusHeLl (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Confused. I know that the question is not strictly relevant to whether this should be deleted, but I find it difficult to proceed with looking for sources if it isn't answered. Why "in North Africa"? Does Berber separatism (or indeed a significant population of Berbers) exist anywhere else? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually yes, there is a large Berber diaspora community in Europe and there is a mixed Berber-European ethnic heritage in the Canary Islands.GreyShark (dibra) 10:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - This is an argumentative essay with OR issues, and needs to be nuked from orbit. There may very well be a notable topic regarding Berber separatism, but in order for a good article on that to be written this needs to be removed. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Sandstein 11:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Nicktoons (Albanian TV channel)

      Nicktoons (Albanian TV channel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Article fails WP:GNG and has had an issue of being WP:OR since March 2019, I’m not sure if these articles were fixed if the article would be worthy enough to save or if deletion is the best option for it. Pahiy (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Freelanthropy

      Freelanthropy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Fails WP:NCORP. Created by the company's founder. I did find one passable source in my pre-AfD check, which I have added, but NCORP requires multiple sources to qualify. The other external links listed are either not independent or do not mention Freelanthropy except in passing. – Teratix ₵ 04:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 04:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 04:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 04:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 04:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was redirect to List of Batman Beyond characters. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Derek Powers

      Derek Powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      One more comic/animation character with nothing but plot and list of appearances. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was redirect to List of Batman Beyond characters. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Inque

      Inque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Another minor comic/animated character. No reception, pure plot and list of appearances. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was redirect to List of Batman family enemies. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Lock-Up (comics)

      Lock-Up (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Not a planet, just a very minor character, plot summary, list of appearances, that's it. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The coverage in Welcome to Arkham Asylum discusses the character as an example of the messages that the show presents about psychiatric care: "This scene, in particular, conveys another confounding message regarding psychiatric institutions: psychiatric treatment, although therapeutic, can result in fears of both the care provider and the fellow patient." — Toughpigs (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The single quoted sentence, which I assume is the best you've found, does not mention the character, and discusses a scene not the character, so it seems totally irrevant. WP:NOTINHERITED. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adam Strange. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Rann (fictional planet)

      Rann (fictional planet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go. Oh yeah, this is another article with zero references, too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      *Weak keep I was considering redirect, but I an not sure where. List of locations of the DC Universe, Adam Strange, and Hawkman are all possibilities. I still don't believe delete is the best option, but if there is no clear redirect target I am left with keep. However I am willing to change based on further discussion and consensus. Rhino131 (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was keep. There is a general consensus against deletion, particularly after the relist. While there's no consensus in favor of a merge, it can, of course, be discussed further outside of AFD. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Apokolips

      Apokolips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep: Apokolips is a planet that is highly integral to the Superman franchise in multiple forms of fiction. Just the many reviews of the film Justice League Dark: Apokolips War gives coverage of Apokolips, considering that is where much of the plot takes place. Similar coverage can be seen for the video game Superman: Shadow of Apokolips. There is also coverage such as Batman v Superman Deleted Scene Links Apokolips to Justice League (2017). Deleting this article would be similar to deleting the article on the major Superman villain Darkseid, and practically all coverage for that villian would have coverage on Apokolips, the planet that he rules over. SL93 (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirect to Darkseid per WP:ATD-R. This is definitely a valid search term that should take the reader somewhere relevant. I could be persuaded to go keep if good evidence is brought here, but I don't have the energy to go looking for it. Maybe someone highlighted the design somewhere... For now, I just wanted to at least state that outright deletion is not necessary. -2pou (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep An important location in the DC Universe for decades and has been depicted in multiple media. I think it is best for users for this to remain as it's own page, rather than be redirected to Darkseid. One other possibility, and this is just a thought, is to merge with New Genesis considering their histories are so intertwined and they are often depicted in stories together. Sources about Kirby's creation and design of the planets could also be added. Rhino131 (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirect or delete - Being a prominent setting is not indicative of coverage in sources. Wikipedia is no longer a site that covers fiction for the sake of covering fiction like in the 2005-ish era. Sources need to be provided to meet WP:GNG and fulfill WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - Highly pivotal part of both Superman and Jack Kirby's Fourth World lore, and integral to the topic of comics. Darkknight2149 11:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There is some analysis of the location in the book Superheroes of the Round Table: Comics Connections to Medieval and Renaissance Literature. Chapter 2 is specifically about Kirby's fourth world. Unfortunately not all pages are available in the preview (I wish I could see page 71- I bet there is some good content). At any rate, even if the page is redirected to Darkseid this would be a useful source for that article. Rhino131 (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Rhino131: Good news is that you can read page 70 on Amazon: [60]. But I don't think it helps much, it is more PLOT summary, through at the bottom there are two sentences about aesthetics and such, but it is still more description than analysis.PS. Ah, you meant 71. No, that one is not available as well, but since it doesn't come up in the search at all for "Apokolips" it may have no relevant content. It could be just a picture, for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Piotrus: I think you are right and it is a picture. I can read page 72 from the Google preview and it looks to start up right where page 70 ends. And I'd give a bit more weight to the source than you do; anything associated with Jack Kirby will get more attention than the average comic location. There is a difference between Apokolips and something like Tamaran, for example, which is truly minor. Rhino131 (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Rhino131: Based on a number of recent AfDs comments I am thinking Kirby's article needs some additional expansion (even though it is a GA already). Or perhaps Fourth World (comics) would be a good place to discuss this. Or maybe a new dedicated article about impact / reception of his works in general. But the sad truth is most of what we have is pure plot / appearances fancruft, and most of the reception we find is both in passing and not in our articles anyway. Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Piotrus: I could get behind that idea. The Fourth World article could use a good impact/reception section- there is certainly real-world information out there about the concept as a whole, if not all the individual characters and locations. Rhino131 (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete or redirect as lacking real-world coverage to pass the WP:GNG, and also create something that's WP:NOT#PLOT. This location can be covered in the context of the stories in which it appears, and does not support a stand-alone article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - planet is integral to DC Comics storylines and has been depicted in fictional media already.Valkyrie Red (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep: "Hell Hath No Furies", a two-page article in The Collected Jack Kirby Collector, Volume 1 (TwoMorrows Publishing, 2004) about the gender power balance on Apokolips. Yes, before you say that it's plot information, it does include descriptions and explanations of fictional material — and then it reflects on that material, doing textual analysis on a particular theme. That's what you do, when you write analysis of fiction. Similarly, the article "Love of Anti-? Life" in The Jack Kirby Collector #71 (2017) analyzes the meaning of several major Fourth World concepts, including Apokolips. Check out page 30: "No one on Apokolips evolves spiritually because there is no love. It is a stagnant society, its inhabitants living in ignorance, the legacy of oppression." This is also not plot information; it is lit-crit analysis. For my third of WP:THREE, The Comics Journal #175 (March 1995) has an article about Kirby's work and influence. I can only see a snippet view, but the snippet of page 76 shows the first part of a passage that looks like analysis: "Kirby tells us what the citizens of Darkseid's realm feel about their lot in life: 'Apokolips is an armed camp where"... I think there's a good chance that that passage is going somewhere significant. I believe that this demonstrates that analysis of Kirby's work focuses on Apokolips as a significant concept. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Tone 04:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Transilvane

      Transilvane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go - except this article is also unreferenced, too, not even the usual primary sources used here, nope, nothing... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanagar

      Thanagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Refereeing at international level is not an indication of notability under ny guideline, not seeing anything on the Hungarian Wikipedia article to indicate GNG Fenix down (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Mohd Nazri Abdullah

      Mohd Nazri Abdullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      I found no significant coverage. Non-notable referee. SL93 (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      And also unreferenced beyond run-of-the-mill databases! GiantSnowman 18:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Rajeev Jha

      Rajeev Jha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      BLP of a subject who is the general secretary of the Rastriya Janata Party Nepal, a relatively small political party. Only relevant guidelines seem to be WP:NPOL—which he does not meet, as he is a party official, not an elected legislator—and WP:BASIC, which I cannot establish either. [61] has some mentions of him, and the references in the article that aren't dead have some passing mentions, but I'm not seeing sustained coverage. I suggest either an outright delete or a delete-and-redirect to Rastriya Janata Party Nepal. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was redirect to Amethyst, Princess of Gemworld. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Gemworld

      Gemworld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      List of Marvel Comics characters named Iron Man

      List of Marvel Comics characters named Iron Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      This list seems to fail WP:LISTN (not citing any sources outside PRIMARY) and seems like a limited fork of Iron Man (disambiguation). At best I'd suggest ensuring that the linked disambig links to all of the characters mentioned here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - Rather pointless disambiguation page. Any characters prominently named Iron Man should just be relocated to the real disambiguation page. TTN (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - As stated, any actual notable character here named "Iron Man" would be better to be included on the disambiguation page. But, really, that would only be James Rhodes, as he is the only one here that actually prominently took on the mantle for any amount of time. Every other entry is either just an alternate version of Tony Stark, or "someone who wore the armor once or twice". Rorshacma (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as redundant to the disambiguation page, and several other Iron Man article spinoffs that are still just about various editions of the same character. Don't need another WP:CONTENTFORK, especially without meeting the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Walhalla railway line. Tone 04:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Siding, Walhalla line

      Siding, Walhalla line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      A temporary, unnamed railway siding doesn't warrant an article. The sole source is of questionable reliability. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Thomas & Friends annuals

      Thomas & Friends annuals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NBOOK. While this isn't named as a list, in function, it is a list. I'm not finding anything that discusses these books as a unit. In fact, I'm pretty much just finding content on wikis, unreliable blogs, and sales sites. I don't see how this is possibly notable. Hog Farm Bacon 02:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Mustafa Majid

      Mustafa Majid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Appears to be a fringe theorist of ethnic groups in Bangladesh who fails WP:NAUTHOR. Worldcat says his most widely held book is in 20 libraries ([66]). Most of the cites in this article are dead or unhelpful, but there is one review in The Daily Star in English [67], so at least the beginnings of a WP:NAUTHOR case. Articles in other Wikipedias do not help with sourcing. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      WindScan

      WindScan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      non-notable defunct commercial product, as per extlink. fgnievinski (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      External references have been added, backing up the product and it's creation and validity. Sale of the WindScan data product continues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjsturman (talk • contribs) 03:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Tone 05:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      SAGA-EO Project

      SAGA-EO Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      non-notable defunct project fgnievinski (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_August_27&oldid=975337776"