Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 August 9 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 delete. After extended time for discussion, there is no support for any scenario in which this content is kept. If someone wants to redirect the title somewhere after the article has been deleted, that would be a matter for another noticeboard. BD2412 T 00:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henrique_Olifiers

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Henrique_Olifiers (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 meet any of the notability criteria for a "Creative professional" (as listed at WP:AUTHOR). None of the projects listed can be said to be significant, and the article reads as simply a list of positions held like a CV. To bring this article up to Wikipedia standards would require a substantial rewrite along with addition citations of notability that simply do not exist. MrMajors (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:57, 8 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. Apart from the fact that nobody except the creator of the article supports keeping, none of the reasons given for keeping are in line with Wikipedia policy. We have, for example the fact that the subject was referred to by an allegedly notable person (irrelevant whether true or not), the fact that there is an article on the subject in German Wikipedia. We are also told other things, such as that the article does not satisfy any of the speedy deletion criteria, but that is presumably precisely why it is at a deletion discussion, rather than having been speedily deleted. Similar considerations apply to other comments form the creator of the article. JBW (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elbst

[edit]
Elbst (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 and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE.   // Timothy :: talk  13:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have completely rewritten the article, and based it on existing sources. I have performed an extensive search for all the sources mentioned in contemporary sources and included what I have found on the talk page. The contemporary sources are mostly based on what Renward Cysat (1545–1614) and later his son Johann (1587–1657), wrote about the regional folklore in the region around Lucerne in the canton of Uri. The modern sources are all compilations and contain no new research at all. The older, 19th century sources are also referencing Cysat again. The exception appears to be de:Josef Müller (Pfarrer) who did speak to some of the locals and includes some of their testimony in his book, Sagen aus Uri: aus dem volksmunde gesammelt. That text is at [1] I wouldn't mind at all if this article got deleted, I mostly rewrote it to show that the first version of this article is NOT based on the sources cited, as claimed but its creator, but on another source, that I have identified as Eberhardt (2002), which is the source of the very mistaken claim that "The word Elbst is said to have it's origin from the German word "albiz" meaning "swan". That is utter nonsense. Vexations (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    An explanation for the claim about the source used for the etymology of "Elbst" is provided here. It's supposed to have been Wood, Francis A. (1908). "Greek and Latin Etymologies". Classical Philology. 3 (1): 74–86. ISSN 0009-837X. That source was never in the article, and doesn't mention Elbst. Vexations (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep
i)Notability
The Original referrer of the Elbst, Renward Cysat is a notable person, his book is notable, thus the creature while being discussed in the same book while having 'significant coverage', multiple reliable secondary sources which are 'independent of the subject', is notable, fulfilling WP:GNG and WP:N. (also in same way, Müller and C. Kohlrusch are notable along with their works
ii) WP:INDISCRIMINATE
The article is neither any of the 'Summary-only descriptions of works', 'Lyrics databases', 'Excessive listings of unexplained statistics' or 'Exhaustive logs of software updates' thus not violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
iii) WP:BEFORE
Also, in spite of WP:BEFORE C. being very much pertinent, the AfD nomination was made.
iv) Alternative of Deletion
The artcile does not violate any 14 points mentioned in WP:DEL-REASON or any of G1-G14 or A1-A11 per WP:CSD. Further per WP:NOTBUILT, since the article has been in the process of improvement, also per WP:DEL#CONTENT, it should be kept.
v) Good Faith and New Comer
Besides I request to consider WP:FAITH and WP:DBN.
vi) Page in Deutschte Wikipedia
There is a page in Deutche Wikipedia about Elbst since 2007, hence this proves the justification for its inclusion.
Comment: I have already requested the article to be moved to draftspace since in the mean time I could not execute the planned enrichment of the article due to the reigning exigent situation, otherwsise there would have been no requirement for this debate. AranyaPathak (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if someone finds a good home I'd vote to merge it there. Troll Control (talk) 10:56, 9 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 Robin (character). Tone 12:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redbird (comics)

[edit]
Redbird (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)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "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 English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded with no helpful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Yet another example that PRODs are vulnerable to abuse. Let's discuss then - can anyone find anything to salvage this? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:02, 31 July 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 02:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:44, 8 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) 23:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AMR Research

[edit]
AMR Research (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 company doesn't seem to be notable. There's only two references in the article. One of them is an interview and the other is a dead link. So neither work for notability. I wasn't able to find multiple in-depth reliable sources on them when I did a WP:BEFORE either. There are a few things cited in the "press coverage" section of the article that are trivially related to them, for an article about the CEO's opinion on Swine Flu, but none of them work for notability IMO. So there doesn't seem to be anything about the company that would help it pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. As a possible alternative to deletion it could be merged into the article of it's parent company Gartner. Adamant1 (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:43, 8 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) 23:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Air

[edit]
Albany Air (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 about a local American airline that went out of business the same year it started. The only two sources in the article seem to be blogs and I failed to find any in-depth reliable secondary sources about it in a WP:BEFORE. Which could be due to the ambiguity of "Albany Air", but I also don't think I found anything because it's probably just not notable. Maybe there will be a few trivial local news articles about it, but it's doubtful there will be enough (or anything) for it to pass WP:NCORP. Adamant1 (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I tried finding sources for this airline, and I'm happy because there is one here, but guess what, it's an air conditioner. I tried looking up to page 17 from Bing, and there's none. It's clearly not notable. GeraldWL 15:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references given don't even support the facts given in the article. I found this link [3] but it doesn't help much either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retswerb (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:42, 8 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. North America1000 04:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Na Zare

[edit]
Na Zare (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:sigcov and WP:SINGLE . Dtt1Talk 21:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dtt1Talk 21:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dtt1Talk 21:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 23:29, 8 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2008–09 Mansfield Town F.C. season

[edit]
2008–09 Mansfield Town F.C. season (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:NSEASONS and WP:GNG Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:24, 10 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) 23:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonis Ahmar

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Moonis Ahmar (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. Last discussion from 2017 was closed as no consensus, I believe it is time that this article be revisited. Somehow it also managed to go over two years with its lead being Template:Resume. TheSandDoctor Talk 23:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 23:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 23:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources on GS but in my view they are not yet enough WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 10 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 12:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Gamble

[edit]
Seth Gamble (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)

Soreces are very bad and unreliable: 1)afd, unreliable. 2) interview, doesn't count toward notability as not independent, 3) passing mention, 4) passing mention, 5) interview, 6) porn award which do not count toward notability since pornbio was deprecated, 7) passing mention, 8) interview, 9) passing mention, 10) interview, 11) passing mention, 12) twitter, 13 to 27) porn award nominations. independent research didn't yield any in depth cover of the subject. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject

Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 10 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) 23:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikayl Arreola

[edit]
Mikayl Arreola (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 WP:NBOX. I can't find anything beyond passing mentions and routine fight results, appears to fail GNG. – 2.O.Boxing 22:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 22:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 22:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 22:40, 8 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) 23:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mila Dolman

[edit]
Mila Dolman (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:NARTIST. scope_creepTalk 22:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://mira1.ru/en/feed/1129 are you searching her name as Мила Долман as well ? Patapsco913 (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the criteria is that it needs to be held in the collections of "several" museums, which has been interpreted as two permanent collections in real museums. Being in a permanent collection is different than just being in a show. One article and one show at a museum does not make the cut. The criteria for a notable artist is here: WP:ARTIST and she does not meet it at this time. SIGCOV means sustained deep coverage over time, not one article. Netherzone (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep that in mind. scope_creepTalk 16:13, 12 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. Salvio 10:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arkamo Rangers

[edit]
Arkamo Rangers (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)

Ephemeral NN band, fails the GNG and all elements of WP:BAND. No significant coverage in reliable sources found beyond namedrops and casual mentions (among them, ZERO G-News hits). Search turns up the usual suspects: YouTube, social media, Spotify, discogs, and the like. Notability tagged for over ten years. Deprodded by the article creator with a lengthy WP:ILIKEIT argument, but no new sources added, now or previously. Ravenswing 22:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. Same old unreliable sites like Amazon, Discogs, Rate Your Music, Spotify, facebook, Google Play, iTunes, Pinterest, Jambase, empty Allmusic page, WP mirrors, concert sites, plus name checks and stuff where the words are separated. (Not going to start a rant about notability and all that stuff.). Btw, the name of the band is more like a sports team. :) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article's creator has exhibited a persecution complex about not just deletion nominations, but any sort of editing, to his articles about local musicians that he enjoys. He has written passionately about the Arkamo Rangers here, but that does not mean they are notable. In this article we learn that "The original band members have diverse and distinct personalities." Wow, that only describes every band ever. The article is dependent on dead links that would have been tangential connections anyway, the band's AllMusic entries are blank, and they have received no reliable media coverage. They played some gigs and picked up some local fans, good for them. They can be discussed in their fans' blogs, not in an encyclopedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The band got little official recognition, but had considerable influence in evolving the native Ozark folk music into it's current, highly-modern, form. Beyond this, the lyrics are significant in that they describe rural youth culture in ways that are likewise ignored by the mainstream profit-oriented media. Deleting this page furthers rural isolation that is causing its better values to decline in ways that are allowing an introjected non-traditional culture to thrive on the traditional decline. The outcome of this is intolerance is conflict between rural and urban that is being leveraged by pathological haters (evidence on tiktok is abundant). I guess you could call this 'a discovery,' but with a long career managing and roady-ing bands through the 80s and 90s with dozens of bands (some with wikipedia pages), I can honestly say that none represented culture or provided influence as this one has. Beyond this is the band's musical and lyrical quality which it's detractors cannot comprehend, because if the could, they would not be attempting to delete it. (Did they even listen? Probably not.) John Bessa (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subjects do not qualify for Wikipedia articles because of their alleged influence, their description of local youth culture, their lyrical quality, or whether other editors know about them, nor if there's a passionate fan out there who wants to include them. They qualify if they have received significant coverage in reliable sources, or if they meet long-defined standards of inclusion. In my user space for over a decade now is a draft article for a man who led a musical group I was in on and off for over forty years, someone with a number of musical accomplishments and whom I revere, and my objective view of whether he can meet the GNG and WP:MUSICBIO is that it's shaky. You have been on Wikipedia long enough to either know the standards which apply to articles, or to learn them if you haven't.

    (By the bye, I just listened to a couple tracks on YouTube, the most popular of which has had 1 view a week since it was uploaded. Perfectly inoffensive bluegrass. The article still doesn't qualify for Wikipedia.) Ravenswing 21:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above "Keep" vote by John Bessa is clearly illogical. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic resource in which people/things must qualify for inclusion, and that is the reason for the policies named by Ravenswing and myself. This band is not notable because they have haters in social media or because some people don't appreciate their culture. The vote then descends into desperate accusations against anyone who refuses to accept the band's greatness, as apparently we don't "comprehend" them because we don't listen to them, and that's why we want to delete the article. Well I don't listen to Kanye West and honestly don't "comprehend" why he attracts universally rave reviews (he's good, but come on) but I have never tried to delete his Wikipedia article. Bessa's vote is little more than an "I like it" fallacy, with an attempt to throw in some original research on why they're brilliant but tragically unknown. Passionate fans can write in blogs, notable bands are covered here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. I loathe rap, for instance, but there is no question that hundreds of rap artists and rap-related subjects pass notability muster with flying colors, and that any attempt to seek their deletion would be not only spiteful and stupid, but wholly against Wikipedia policy. Ravenswing 03:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @John Bessa: "The band got little official recognition..." See, that's the problem here. On Wikipedia we don't measure notability on the ground of "I like this band." That's not a good reason. The band needs to have reliable, secondary sources and the article can be kept. For example I cannot stand the genres of teen-pop or country, but I don't start an AfD on the articles of let's say, Hannah Montana or Willie Nelson just because I hate them. They have been covered in reliable media so that makes them notable, same with a lot of other artists. On the other hand I couldn't find anything reliable on this band, just social media pages, streaming service links, concert promotion sites and retail sites. These are not enough for WP inclusion. So to summarize: just because you like this band does not warrant it a Wikipedia article. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:25, 12 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 Josip Broz Tito. This is a tricky one. The article is definitely not ok as it stands. A separate article on the topic that is not a POV fork? Possible, but needs work. Even better, incorporation of a section about the personality cult into the main article. Closing as a redirect so that content remains available if any of the above actions are taken later. Tone 12:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of Tito

[edit]
Myth of Tito (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:SOAPBOX commentary essay. Now the views presented in the article may have representation outside Wikipedia, including by scholars, but stating that the notion Tito liberated Yugoslavia in WWII or that Tito was a Yugoslav nation-builder as 'myth' is inherently POV. Different viewpoints on the role of Tito can be expressed in the main article without creating POVFORKs. Soman (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67 -- since you are more experienced than I in this part of the WikiBalkans, I am curious on your view on this. I think WP:TNT may apply here, but is there some reason in particular that you think this cannot be a stand-alone constructed along the lines of Stalin's_cult_of_personality? --Calthinus (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Calthinus. The central problem with the article is the creator, Antidiskriminator. As Maleschreiber rightly points out, there is extensive and long-term evidence that they have a long list of POV creations (only a few of the recent ones are mentioned by Maleschreiber, I could add a dozen more in the last year), and they definitely will not fix the article in the way that you suggest. They do not edit neutrally, have very fixed views and will be intransigent, and are more likely to double down and make it worse. If this article is not blown up, it will linger on as a POV fork from the Tito article. The useable bits could be merged into the Tito article, but I feel it would be a grave error to allow it to stand alone in this form, and would reward the constant POV-pushing behaviour. The egregious POV behaviour of Antidiskriminator needs to be addressed with ArbCom, who imposed a lengthy "Serbs in the 20th century" TBAN on them some time ago, which obviously should be reinstated. I will get to it, but frankly, there is a lot of POV-pushing and disruption in the Balkans area at present, and it is hard to keep on top of it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything that Peacemaker67 has put forward. The editing pattern of that editor indicates that they are not even interested if the articles they write are tagged for multiple policy violations. The main goal seems to be to use wikipedia as a repository for certain ideas and to keep them around as "alternative facts". But the problem with keeping, let's say, Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period is that even if kept in a heavily tagged mode it still puts forward a conspiracy theory as an alternative. Honestly, I think that only AE can solve the Yugoslav topic area problems which IMO don't necessarily begin with the fact that editors have a POV, but the fact that they're trying to game the way policies function in order to push that POV. If everyone argued for their - minor or major - (N)POV within the boundaries of wikipedia's policies and used reliable bibliography consistently, then all POVs would be eliminated eventually and a narrative which would reflect reality would emerge. But since that doesn't happen, the community should enforce core policies in the strictest manner. --Maleschreiber (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67:, i agree with your sentiments, when you get the time do address those concerns at Arbcom. There are few admins (1 other apart from yourself dealing with the southern end of the region) with topical knowledge on the Balkans, many don't want to delve further to address the POV pushing and or call it even when its not. That's the state of things in this topic area (sigh). Best.Resnjari (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very poorly written WP:POVFORK based on extremely POV conceptualization and WP:FRINGE bibliography. A similar POVFORK was deleted a few months ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs and articles Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period fall in the same category.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have added valid references to this page. The topic of this article has received significant coverage (link to section about works dedicated exclusively to Myth of Tito) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per Wikipedia:Notability. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - A week after the article was nominated for deletion I think it can be concluded there is a consensus that the topic is notable, and it should have coverage on Wikipedia within an article of its own. The main concern of editors who !voted for deletion or renaming is pov of part of the article's text or its title, which is not valid reason for deletion. Wikipedia policies (ie Wikipedia:Deletion policy) points to an alternative to deletion which includes tagging to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. One editor who !voted for deletion insisted on tagging the article (diff and diff) to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article). It is impossible to attract editors to the article which is deleted. I invite editors who are concerned about article's pov to respond to tag added by their fellow editor and join editing of the article. No article/editor - no problem is not how Wikipedia works. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is currently in poor condition, but the topic is fairly well represented and well documented. Cult of personality, Relay of Youth, Titoism, Law on protecting values, etc.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What I see is a political pamphlet. Who determine what is true and what is a myth? It would be like saying that Tito was not wounded in the Battle of the Sutjeska and that this event is a myth invented by the communists. This article is a one-sided political pamphlet in which there is no other side and thus the article cannot be neutral. Maybe some information with a stronger source may be part of an article about Tito(legacy section). Mikola22 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A bit unsure here. Unlike some others, I think this is a notable topic, clearly -- WEBDuB is right on this. However, the current page is such a POV eyesore (see below) that it is just on the edge of WP:TNT. If the page is to be rescued, I would like to see substantial work in (a) reducing the egregious POV-in-wikivoice on the page, (b) improving the prose which will require a fair amount of work, and (c) dealing with other aspects of the myth of Tito in historiography and elsewhere, such as the spread of the myth to the West as Tito (much like Ceaucescu later with Reagan) managed to portray himself as somehow friendly to capitalistic states, and how this led to the coalescence of the myth of Tito as a man who successfully brought quarrelling peoples together in some paradise state (side note: and that was, at the time was, though now amusingly, used as a model for the proposed One state solution for Israel/Palestine -- not in scope, but this is an aspect of the notability of the myth I would argue -- though perhaps that is the whole Bratsvo Jedinstvo myth more than Tito himself). And, of course, the legacy of that myth, as the state he built fell apart after his death. For examples of the sort of prose that is totally unacceptable on Wikipedia for how POV it is, here is one (which I agree with, but geez, this is just so unprofessional): In this atmosphere of faultlessness many catastrophic political moves were drawn which slowly but inevitably pushed the all country and its Communist leaders into total catastrophe and disintegration.[3] The mythologized Tito and dreamland Yugoslavia never existed.[8] Also, this Danko Popović emphasized that for half of the century movies and books published in Yugoslavia were used to nurture myth of Tito and distort image of Chetniks.[7] -- Popovic is a "writer and playwright" so he is not even remotely WP:DUE, and in light of that, regardless of intention, this sentence will look to almost any informed Western reader like it was inserted just to rehabilitate the Chetniks. Last example: The Myth of Tito was almost unanimously accepted and parroted by western scholars -- no citation, and, well... ahem. --Calthinus (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Josip Broz Tito cult of personality and rewrite per comments by Calthinus or delete. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Article needs improving but it is a worthy and notable topic to have a Wikipedia article about. Alternatively it can be merged and turned into a section on the Tito wikipedia page. --James Richards (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topic is notable, and it should have coverage on Wikipedia. Why not an article of its own. But not this one. It is written very badly. Since it needs to be entirely rewritten, it first needs to be deleted. @Peacemaker67: I see your concerns about the creator of this article, and their continual creation of articles with numerous issues, but unless you take it to AE, your concerns will keep growing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "Tito cult of personality". Jingiby (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Tito's cult of personality I have witnessed firsthand among elderly and middle aged people (from former Yugoslavia) in Australia, and probably scholarship covers this in regards to Yugo-nostalgia. But i saw the concerns of admin @Peacemaker and i agree with them. Not only that, Balkan topics have enough POV to deal with, and not that many competent editors are around to address them. This will just be another article in need of work that will languish for years without any real attention.Resnjari (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment At Talk:Myth of Tito#POV and tone I have detailed, with examples, the serious deficiencies in just one of the sources used in the article, which is just a ridiculous fringe and POV polemic that makes all sorts of groundless claims about well-known facts regarding Tito. This source is used for more than a quarter of the citations in the article, including some of the most extreme statements. This is an example of why TNT is required here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its not just one of the sources. Its only one of 15 sources (almost all written by contemporary university professors) that Peacemaker67 pointed as fringe. I replied at the same page and explained that claims about groundless claims about well-known facts regarding Tito are incorrect and not even used in the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is the source for eight of the 29 citations used in the article, over 25%. I haven't even examined the rest yet. I have responded to your claims on the talk page. This is really a WP:CIR problem. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your position is contradictory. You haven't even examined the rest of the sources but you proclaimed that article has WP:FRINGE bibliography diff. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, your position is that when over 25% of an article's citations are to a ridiculous polemic with over a dozen clear factual errors, that doesn't qualify as a fringe bibliography? I'll get to the rest, but I note that Maleschreiber was the first to raise the fringe aspect of the bibliography. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. There are no over a dozen clear factual errors. I proved at article talkpage that your claims about discrepancy of birth date and membership of CPY date are incorrect. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You proved nothing. You made unsubstantiated claims. I provided reliable sources that showed that these claims are spurious. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. I directly refuted central point of your position by explaining at article's talkpage that you were incorrect, provided sources to prove it and explained that you actually refuted your position yourself with Ridley. You are right with one thing: This is really a WP:CIR problem.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I invite interested editors to examine the talk page and judge for themselves regarding Antidiskriminator's claims about what he has proved or otherwise. Not only is competence required, but English comprehension is also required. I do not propose to continue this tit-for-tat nonsense here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Peacemaker67. Ljubiša Despotović's article is a WP:FRINGE article. Another FRINGE element which is utilized for heavy POV purposes is Danko Popović emphasized that for half of the century movies and books published in Yugoslavia were used to nurture myth of Tito and distort image of Chetniks. Setting aside, the obvious historical revisionism about the Nazi collaborationist Chetniks, the article puts forward as a legitimate source, Danko Popović, a figure of Serbian literature - thus, not even remotely a reliable source for historical subjects - who talks about Tito's victorious Partisans as wild highlanders who claimed the girls from Serbia's heartland region, Sumadija, as war booty in a manner similar to the way their hajduk (brigand) ancestors abducted the womenfolk of "agas and beys" during the Ottoman times. Counterposed to communist highlanders stand both the Sumadija girls (by implication, peasants) and the cultivated bourgeois girls from Belgrade and larger cities. This sort of bibliography is being put forward in the article in addition to many misleading citations. Tito as a whole can be discussed in Titoism and Yugo-nostalgia among many legitimate articles. This one is just a WP:POVFORK that needs to be deleted. In general, it needs to be addressed in AE. The longer such editing is allowed to continue without admin intervention, the more it creates an enviroment which makes other editors in the Balkan topic area think that they can act in the same way outside of the context set by wikipedia's core principles.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:20, 16 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. Salvio 10:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Rice (director)

[edit]
John Rice (director) (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 person has worked on notable films, but I am unable to find any sources about him. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:45, 8 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) 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

High Roller Casino

[edit]
High Roller Casino (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 survived an (mass) AfD 10 years ago as 'no consensus' and hasn't improved since, but we are now much stricter in our guidelines on what is notable. My BEFORE failed to find any significant coverage of this toy, and WP:NOTACATALOGUE of pinball machines... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 30 July 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, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussions: 2011-01 CSI (pinball) no consensus
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 21:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piotrus I'm gonna need a sizable quantity of Code Red Mountain Dew and Flaming Hot Cheetos tomorrow :)   // Timothy :: talk 
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 12:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Nu Thway (season 2)

[edit]
Pan Nu Thway (season 2) (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 or WP:TVSHOW. It does air on a nation station, but my WP:BEFORE turned up nothing, but I will happily change my vote to keep if anyone can find WP:RS to establish WP:N.   // Timothy :: talk  14:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  14:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  14:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This TV show is very old and far many year. Before nomination sources were completed and other sources were deleted a few year ago. So there is only two sources.SoeThiha5 (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 21:37, 8 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. Salvio 12:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Nu Thway (season 1)

[edit]
Pan Nu Thway (season 1) (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 or WP:TVSHOW. One ref is an interview with May Myint Moe, but it's about her and gives no info about show. It does air on a nation station, but my WP:BEFORE turned up nothing, but I will happily change my vote to keep if anyone can find WP:RS to establish WP:N.   // Timothy :: talk  14:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  14:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  14:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This TV show is very old and far many year. Before nomination sources were completed and other sources were deleted a few year ago. So there is only two sources.SoeThiha5 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 21:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Five years ago is not remotely "very old," not when TV shows have been around for nearly ninety years. No significant coverage in evidence. Ravenswing 11:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The show it's a season of is barley notable. The seasons for it clearly aren't. So, this is completely unnecessary fork. What little sources there are about this and the other season should be combined in the article about the show to help it not get deleted also. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 18 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 2.O.Boxing 13:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Tim VanNewhouse

[edit]
Tim VanNewhouse (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 has significant coverage to pass GNG, however, I do not think he's notable enough to merit an article. He fails WP:NBOX; didn't compete in the final of a national tournament or compete internationally as an amateur, and didn't achieve anything in the one fight he had as a professional. There's quite a few mentions on google of him as a manager, but nothing of any note, failing WP:ANYBIO – 2.O.Boxing 21:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 21:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 21:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 21:18, 8 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. Sandstein 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whac-A-Mole (House)

[edit]
Whac-A-Mole (House) (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 episode of House M.D.. I did a Google search, but I only found User generated content and primary sources. The only sources were from Fandom, Blogspot, and Imdb.

Metacritic wouldn't help the article either, as it has almost no content besides a short plot summary

The episode is not notable, and has also been unsourced since May 2011. Koridas 📣 23:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have no real opinion as to whether or not this article should be kept, but as far as third-party sources are concerned, I did manage to find an IGN review of the episode. Also, based on the show's template, it seems that literally every episode of the series outside of the first season has its own article. If this episode is not notable enough for inclusion, then there are likely several others that should be brought here as well. Kurtis (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only speaking to the point that House MD was a show routinely covered with many reviews and recaps per episode when it was released, eg with this episode, I can find reviews like IGN, AVClub but as a 2006 show, this is sorta where Google's archive search tends to break down. There is a fair question that many of the House episodes may need to be merged up to seasons (at minimum) save for those clearly notable, but that decision is beyond the scope of an AFD. --Masem (t) 18:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is essentially just an un-referenced plot summary and I don't see it being anything other then that even with the IGN review. Ultimately IMO most or all of the articles about specific house episodes should just be in the article about the seasons that they are in. Otherwise, it's just going to be nothing but a bunch of long winded plot summaries and nothing much else, that won't be well maintained. Even for the "notable" ones. The rare exception maybe being the first and last episode of the show and maybe a few about episodes involving plot twists that were extremely important to the show, but that's it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 20:43, 8 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 20:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fry family (chocolate)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Fry family (chocolate) (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)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fry family that has just closed as a Delete. This version was AFD'd in 2007 with only three Keep ivotes and no Delete ivotes. I refer to this as a "version" as it is just a reworking of the family genealogy article that has just been deleted. The difference is a small unsourced three-sentence section about chocolate. One of the three sentences is not about chocolate, but about the type-setting foundry mentioned in its own following small section.

Just as it was in 2007, sourcing in this article is not pertinent to the chocolate business, but more of the genealogy sourcing. Comments were made then, that it needed a lot of work. In the ensuing 13 years, nothing substantive seems to have been done. Why keep this around, if there is no effort to make it viable to Wikipedia standards? — Maile (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will note the family is also heavily involved in Bristol and Quaker affairs as well as being involved in the chocolate business (with four generations of people called Joseph Fry). At a minimum the Religious Society of Friends project should also be notified. --Erp (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nominator is absolutely correct: this kind of mostly primary genealogy sourcing does not establish notability for a family. Erp, nothing is relevant until it is noted by secondary sources, and those sources will have to make the case for really the family as a whole, a few generations, not just one person. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yep, the usual 2007-era keep close, with sentiments about how the article would surely pass muster just as soon as someone sourced it. Failed the GNG then, fails the GNG now. Enough is enough. Ravenswing 11:51, 9 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. Salvio 12:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavesh (actor)

[edit]
Bhavesh (actor) (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 of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. He is an actor but doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR. A before search I conducted only links me mostly to YouTube & Pinterest. Celestina007 18:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG as "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and satisfies WP:NACTOR as the topic has had prominent roles in later movies like & P se Pyaar F se Farar and features in lead roles in the last two films, with the role in the latest ongoing film, Hawayein (2020).His latest bollywwod featuring in the lead role "Defultter" has had favorable reviews with acting of both the leads highly praised in mainstream media.IndiaBulez (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The above editor is the creator of the article.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You are Correct! but, Bhavesh is an actor he completed two Bollywood films. if you feel free, you can edit and make the article better (Actor stub ) added. IndiaBulez (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IndiaBulez, merely being an actor doesn’t guarantee a stand alone article. They have to satisfy a notability criteria of which subject of your article fails to satisfy any known notability criteria. Furthermore @Umakant Bhalerao, thanks for the observation. I didn’t catch that earlier. Celestina007 07:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IndiaBulez:, I think you should not have created this page again when you already knew it had been deleted two times in Afd and should have waited until the notability was achieved. Just being an actor does not mean that the person described is necessarily an appropriate encyclopedia subject. I don't see any substantial change in the article since the last Afd and it still fails WP:NACTOR.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @TamilMirchi: the sources you provided are either press releases or paid content and not independent of him.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:24, 13 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 20:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Western Shore of Maryland

[edit]
Western Shore of Maryland (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:GEOLAND. This article has no references that still exist, and has needed more since early 2012. I cannot find any reliable sources that give this region significant coverage. AviationFreak💬 18:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 18:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 18:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This is not a real thing, though press people will sometimes use the phrase in contrast with the Eastern Shore, which is a real region. But as someone who lives in the area, it's just not a term that anyone uses with any consistent meaning, if at all. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 10 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 Government agencies in Nepal. Tone 20:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nepal government organizations

[edit]
List of Nepal government organizations (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)

List of web links violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If we remove the links, then it's just a list of government agencies which is already covered by Category:Government agencies of Nepal. –dlthewave ☎ 18:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 8 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. Salvio 13:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Condra

[edit]
Julie Condra (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 actress, even the only mentions of her are in relation to her husband and notability is not inherited. Her career doesn't apepar to have ever taken off and she has primarily only ever held minor roles in the 80s and 90s. I'm not sure what the Young Artist Award is but I can't find a source for it anyway. Praxidicae (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For someone to think Julia Condra is non-notable must be either born in the late 90's or 2000. Is like saying Kimberly Hart ( Amy Jo Johnson ) the first Pink Power rangers is non-notable.

Julie Condra had appeared Circus of the Stars which was an annual television special, broadcast by the CBS network which featured many leading movie and television stars. You need some level of fame to be there as you can see the list is all filmed with superstars, famous or above average level actors/actress. Julie Condra would be a above level fame or even famous actress

Julie Condra have been in the 11th Youth in Film Awards which was nominated for Best Young Actress in a Daytime Drama for her work Santa Barbara.

Julie Condra role as Madeline Adams Wonder years still have views as high as 150,000 132,000, 390,000, 420,000, In English, Spanish, Korean, Portuguese. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=madeline+adams+wonder+years

It's so weird to me that someone would say she is a non-notable actress. My only guess you have to be born in the late 90s and 2000's. I was born in early 80's and those from 70's, 60's, 50's would surely know her ( not necessarily true for many ) if you remember her role as Madeline Adams, her videos still have 100,000 to 420,000 views and with even videos of her translated even in Spanish, Korean, Portuguese. Her role as Madeline Adams from the Wonder years was remembered by many young people, teens, young adults for mainly being the new hot girl in high school that fell madly in love with Kevin (and we were envious of Kevin ). You only need to look at the Youtube comments how all the boys fantasize her role. As Madeline Role, her older age, maturity, but with this beautiful angelic, innocent cute face that made every kid, teen and young guy fell in love. I would say she was most famous around 1990 to 1992, she kind of started to become less popular after her marriage with Brandon Douglas ( who isn't famous but recognizable, somewhat famous perhaps) who were some girls dream boy. True that she fell into Irrelevance after the year 2000, I have not heard from her after 1998, and her last movie I watched was Crying man. You would only later see her with 1 or 2 episode of here and there although with plenty of time on screen involving her story. Saying she is non-notable is like saying Kimberly Hart, the first American female pink power rangers is a non-notable actress, she kind of fell into irrelevancy after her first power ranger series 1993-1995, after she left power rangers I don't even know where she went to. Is she a non-notable actress just because people born in 90's and 2000's who never enjoyed the first Power rangers. I personally also don't know these new Power ranger actress. For many people before 90's, 2000's generation we would know people like Julie Condra and Kimberly Hart better than these new 2000's Disney actress or Games of Thrones actress. Even if they are not as popular as today they are still our childhood from the early 90's. Shadohaw (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm finding surprisingly little on her, because I recall (I'm an old guy) significant print coverage on her around the time of Eerie, Indiana, where she had a major role. But all I can find now is mostly listings of her name as a cast member in her various series, and a coverage of her Young Artist Award nomination in an undetermined 1990 issue of The Hollywood Reporter. No !vote from me at this time. TJRC (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For someone to think Julia Condra is non-notable must be either born in the late 90's or 2000 It seems to me she only seems notable to some born in the 80s who grew up with the Wonder Years. --John B123 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The passionate advocacy above notwithstanding, I don't see any evidence the subject meets the GNG, and she certainly doesn't make WP:NACTOR, never having had a starring role in a significant film or show. None of the sources in the article pass muster: they're either unreliable (Facebook, social media, blogs) or namedrops/casual mentions. As far as her purportedly seminal role in The Wonder Years, she appeared in only four out of 115 eps, and 31 other actors appeared in more over the course of the series. That the actress is part of User:Shadohaw's childhood I wouldn't argue against, but being part of an editor's childhood isn't in any Wikipedia notability criteria. Ravenswing 12:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ravenswing. Despite the article creator's claims, there is no evidence to suggest that the role on The Wonder Years helps satisfy any of the criteria given at WP:NACTOR, and there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS portion of the article creator's argument is irrelevant. --Kinu t/c 05:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I totally agree with the other delete voters. The article fails WP:NACTOR since she was never in a significant role and also WP:GNG because there's no in-depth reliable sources about her. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:56, 18 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 20:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Wayne

[edit]
Robert Wayne (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 any sources to support WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. No significant coverage by any independent source, no major label, no charting, no awards. The sources in the article are to him apparently "interviewing" himself, and one of his song videos, both self-published to YouTube. Schazjmd (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 8 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 20:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gkkworks

[edit]
Gkkworks (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)

Absolutely terrible primary or PR-like sources and utterly non-notable firm. No reliable, independent sources can be found that establish its notability; only passing mentions in gutter journalism sites. The creator has a problematic history of creating other such articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Imperial 3, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discovery Offices, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSA Architects. This one, like all of them, fails WP:GNG, fails WP:ORG completely and ridiculously. MaysinFourty (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 8 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 20:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Depths (novel)

[edit]
Depths (novel) (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:BOOK. Has been listed as non-notable since December 2017. Lettlerhello 16:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 16:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 16:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 16:09, 8 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 20:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SSA Architects

[edit]
SSA Architects (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)

Utterly non-notable firm. No in-depth independent, reliable references can be found that establish its notability. The creator has a problematic history of creating other articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Imperial 3 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discovery Offices. This one fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:ORG. MaysinFourty (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 8 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 20:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Offices

[edit]
Discovery Offices (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)

Bogus article; bogus references. It's written as if it exists. Even if it once existed on paper, that paper seems to be have been lost. No in-depth reliable sources can be found. All references cited are primary or PR that lead nowhere. It's a mystery how the article has stood since 2013. I'm going through the creator's problematic history (also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Imperial 3). This fails all notability guidelines and, further, bears no resemblance to reality. MaysinFourty (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 8 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. Tone 20:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dystopia (book)

[edit]
Dystopia (book) (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)

In my opinion, this is not notable enough per Wikipedia's notability guidelines on books (WP:NB). The author doesn't appear to be notable enough for his own article (was deleted in 2019) - and I can't find any independent sources for either the book or the author. Thsoe current sources on the page are mostly references to the book itself, or websites advertising/selling the book (see WP:BOOKSTORE). Seagull123 Φ 15:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 15:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 15:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 15:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - I agree that there is currently no coverage of the book in reliable sources. However, it just was released in e-book format, and won't be released in physical form for another month, so it could simply be a case of being WP:TOOSOON. Sending it back to draft until its actual full release might be helpful, to see if any reviews in reliable sources wind up coming out in the near future. Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Agree with above, reliable sources are hard to find. In Google books, the author tells, "reading the book might feel so fragmented"... and I think this book needs more time and responses from his peers in the town planning field.--Whiteguru (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:17, 15 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. Discounting the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltan Feher (diplomat-scholar)

[edit]
Zoltan Feher (diplomat-scholar) (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. Not a diplomat. Possibly an academic. scope_creepTalk 15:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Way WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this PhD student. The best case for GNG notability is via the Daily Iowan (the student newspaper of the University of Iowa) and Diplomata sources, but I'm not seeing the former as significant coverage, and I'm uncertain of the independence of the latter. The article has severe WP:PROMO issues, and overall I think the case for WP:TNT is stronger than that for GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Robert McClenon: who dealt with drafts of the same article at AfC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not they don't. The whole thing is crock, a lie. He is not a diplomat nor a scholar. The whole thing is fake. scope_creepTalk 15:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post reference is a passing mention, confirming that he was press secretary. Not a diplomat. The Daily Iowan is a passing mention as well. The pigeon gets more coverage, and even that paper confirms he was a press secretary, a low level position, and only because he was visiting the local library. Not a diplomat. scope_creepTalk 15:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is important that we examine the article and its references thoroughly, and with some knowledge about diplomacy. The subject of the article served as a professional diplomat for 12 years, as the references confirm. A press secretary at an embassy is a diplomatic function, filled by professional diplomats. I have re-read both news articles mentioned. Neither are passing mentions, just the contrary. Both The Daily Iowan article and the Washington Times article are solely dedicated to describing this person's diplomatic work and innovative approaches. The Washington Times article sites no less than the U.S. Secretary of Commerce to this end. On the page, there are 14 other sources and 7 publications to confirm that this person is notable as both a diplomat and an academic.Jean-Michel Belmondo (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We will go through the references, using the standard table. scope_creepTalk 17:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion struck as both Jean-Michel Belmondo and article creator Anita Hernandez-García have been confirmed as sockpuppets of Zoltanfeher
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and it does not seem that AfD is the place to resolve issues with respect to how this subject should be named or what it should be grouped with. BD2412 T 00:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Illyrian (South Slavic)

[edit]
Illyrian (South Slavic) (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)

Reason Zixt2010 (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands is misleading. Illyrian language was a name sometimes used to refer to Croatian in the 15-19th centuries. This is evident from a list of Croatian dictionaries: List of Croatian dictionaries and the list of Croatian grammars: Croatian-language grammar books in Wikipedia. See also the standard work on Slavic lexicography by Edward Stankiewicz “Grammars and Dictionaries of the Slavic Languages from the Middle Ages Up to 1850”, originally published in 1984, latest edition is from 2016.

The article offers no sources for the claims it makes. There are two external links in the article. One links to a website which describes the grammar by Bartol Kašić as the first grammar of the Croatian language. Stankiewicz describes this grammar as follows, at page 77: “Croatian Grammars 17th-18th Century Cassius, Bartholomeus [Kašić, Bartol], Institutionum linguae illyricae libri duo, 2 vols., Rome 1604. K.’s grammar, written in Latin and modelled on popular Latin grammars (especially on those of Manuzio and Alvarez), deals with orthography, phonetics, declension (vol. I) and verbal forms (vol. II). K. aimed at the creation of a unified Croatian language, but in effect he codified čakavian with an admixture of štokavian elements. The grammar served as a base for later grammarians up to Appendini.”

The second link is to a Bulgarian history book. The page referred to in the article says that Petar Bogdan, apart from his native language {Bulgarian} mastered classical and contemporary languages - Illyrian {Croatian}, Old Bulgarian {Old Church Slavonic}, Russian, Vlach {Romanian}, Turkish and Italian. {The modern language names are in curly brackets.} It also says that Bogdan was held in high regard by the esteemed Croatian literary figure Rafael Levaković and that he collaborated with Levaković on editing and publishing of Illyrian liturgical books.

It is clear from the list of Croatian dictionaries and grammars in Wikipedia, and in Stankiewicz, that names formerly used as synonyms for the Croatian language were Illyrian, Dalmatian, Slavic (slovinski) etc. Other South Slavic languages were not called Illyrian, though they were called different names as well: eg. Carniolan and Windisch for Slovenian.

This article is nominated for deletion AfD. It had already been marked for deletion, but the deletion tag was removed within 7 days. The article can’t be fixed through normal editing. It may be possible to have a redirection, where Illyrian language redirects to the Croatian language, just like Bohemian language redirects to the Czech language article. However, this is not a solution here, because there was an ancient Illyrian language.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as pointed out in the articles talk, this a historical description of an obsolete term, if the article would be misleading, it could be cured by renaming, however some short article titles does not necessarily imply the case the nominator thinks, since it does not say South Slavic would be Illyrian, just refers to the historical association of it, etc. The article may be improved with sources, as for the reasons listed here we should not delete as well the Illyrian movement article, which was as well a South Slavic cultural movement (shall it be scientifically true or not the connection to Illyrians, on such ground many other issues may be debated or to be judged uncertain, but it does not mean these did not exist, e.g.).(KIENGIR (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose, if there are errors in the seminal page creation then these can be adjusted by anybody but the removal of the article would not he helpful. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could the proposer clarify the policy grounds for the proposed deletion? It seems there are multiple POVs clashing here, but I don't think an AfD discussion is the right forum for settling such matters. The article certainly needs a thorough going-over, to remove the many instances of polemic or worse (and I am mindful here of the edit history and blocked status of the creating editor) as well as at least some of the unsupported statements, but that doesn't in and of itself necessitate deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks DoubleGrazing for the question on the policy grounds for the proposed deletion. Apologies in advance for the long answer, but it may make things clearer (I’ll also include it in the article’s talk page if you think that is the more appropriate location):

The reason for deletion is POV. Illyrian language was a name used to refer to the Croatian language in the 15-19th centuries (other names were used – refer to Stankiewicz pp. 77-93). The article makes unsourced claims in almost every sentence, and for that reason it cannot be improved. At best, it can be changed as a redirection to the Croatian language, but I consider that is not a good option because there was an ancient Illyrian language. The better option is for the Croatian language redirection to occur in the Illyrian language disambiguation page, and for this article to be deleted.

Going through each sentence of the article:

“The Illyrian language was a common name of the South Slavic languages…” Unsourced statement. POV. The standard reference, Stankiewicz, has Illyrian as referring to Croatian only; no other South Slavic language was referred to as Illyrian.

“… before the emergence of Slavistics and Cyrillo-Methodian Studies, and especially during the Ottoman period.” Unsourced statement.

“It was imposed as a common language as a result of Catholic propaganda in the Balkans in the 17th century.” Unsourced statement. POV. Illyrian was used as early as the 15th century to refer to Croatians and the Croatian language. This has nothing to do with Catholic propaganda. See the article talk’s page for more details.

“ In the 18th century it was replaced by the Slavonic-Serbian.[1]” The link, which talks about Petar Bogdan, does not support the statement. Illyrian was used to refer to the Croatian language until the second half of the 19th century (Stankiewcz). The Wikipedia article on Slavonic-Serbian correctly states that the Serbian recension of Church Slavonic was replaced in the 18th century by Slavonic-Serbian. Illyrian has nothing to do with this.

“Its base is Dubrovnik literature and Kotor literature from the Bugarštica,” Unsourced statement.

“and its first representative is Dinko Zlatarić.” Unsourced statement. The Wikipedia article on Dinko Zlatarić correctly states that he wrote in Croatian and Italian languages.

“Bartol Kašić can be considered the father of this language.” Unsourced statement. POV and possibly original research. Illyrian was used to refer to Croatians and the Croatian language before Bartol Kašić. Kašić was the first to write a grammar with the word Illyrian in the title, but as the second link states, that book was the first Croatian grammar book.

“In 1595, during the Long Turkish War, he became a Jesuit. From 1609 to 1633 he lived in Dubrovnik. In 1613-1614 and 1618-1619 he was on a mission in Bosnia, Serbia and Eastern Slavonia.” Unsourced statement. Irrelevant to the language, and already covered in the Wikipedia article on Bartol Kašić.

“In 1604 Institutionum linguae illyricae libri duo (the structure of the Illyrian language in two books; 200 pages) was published in Rome. Grammar is used as textbooks by Jesuits who have been sent on a mission in the Balkans. Bartol Kašić adopts the South Slavic dialect of grammar in Shtokavian, pointing out as such the subdialect of Dubrovnik that is everyday for him. [2]” This passage requires a bit of rewriting to make it grammatical and understandable. The link clearly states that this book was the first Croatian grammar book. Calling it a “South Slavic dialect of grammar in Shtokavian” is misleading and POV.

In summary, there is nothing to improve in the article. If the unsourced statements are removed, there will be nothing left.

Zixt2010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zixt2010. I'm no personal expert on South Slavs; my knowledge is better on North (or East/West) Slavs as I am Ukrainian from Lvov. Arguably one or the other depending whose narrative you adopt! :))) Either way, we did live together ancestrally in Austria-Hungary and we all at some point adopted Pan-Slavism. My point here is that this article can be salvaged by you contributing all of the above information with the sources. --Coldtrack (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the Croatian language page I added the reference to Stankiewicz. Redirection to the Serbo-Croatian language is inappropriate in my view, because in Stankiewicz it is clear that the term Illyrian was not used to refer to the Serbian language. Zixt2010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It sems this is a dispute about what is the closest language group. It isnot the province of WP to dcide such things, and certainly not at AfD. Rather, expand the articles to include to various views and sources. DGG ( talk ) 10:10, 17 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 merge to History of bitcoin. T. Canens (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin faucet

[edit]
Bitcoin faucet (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)

notability per WP:GNG not established, only covered as novelty in reputable media Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are notable part of early bitcoin history and the sources are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. There are also other mentions in media, interviews, etc when people got bitcoin from Gavin's faucet, etc. Here Wired talks about Gavin Andresen's early bitcoin faucet. There were others as well. Plenty notable. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: the Wired piece just mentions the faucet in passing, with a single sentence, with no actual details about it. There is nothing to cite from that article, except the fact that it existed. It's not sufficient for an article. It does not become notable history just become you claim it is. Other sources do not exist just because you claim they do. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources in Google Books. So many hits in google news it would be tedious to search through them all. Did you do any search prior to nomination? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jtbobwaysf, How about you add them and then suggest the discussion be reconsidered? That tends to be much more productive than this. Perhaps you've done so already. Fiddle Faddle 21:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, i havent yet and I am going to sleep. Maybe tomorrow. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard: did you actually buy the Springer book? It costs a hundred bucks for me. I wonder if somebody could access it for free from university. I doubt it would cover faucets more than in passing. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Superastig: like David mentions, all those sources are unreliable, except maybe Springer. But the Springer source doesn't actually seem to mention faucets, so why did you link it? --Ysangkok (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got a look at someone else's copy. The text actually has a several-paragraph section about bitcoin faucets and describing their security implications. It looked a good source to me. Still not convinced it's enough to stand up a standalone article, but if it gets merged somewhere that source would be fine wherever it ends up - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:09, 8 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coje Ya Menia (creature)

[edit]
Coje Ya Menia (creature) (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 and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE.   // Timothy :: talk  13:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep :i) Notability
The Original referrer of the Coje Ya Menia, Ilse von Nolde is notable person, his book is notable, thus the creature while being discussed in the same book while having 'significant coverage', multiple reliable secondary sources which are 'independent of the subject', is notable, fulfilling WP:GNG and WP:N.(also in same way, Ingo Krumbiegel and Ilse Esdorn are notable along with their works.
ii) WP:INDISCRIMINATE
The article is neither any of the 'Summary-only descriptions of works', 'Lyrics databases', 'Excessive listings of unexplained statistics' or 'Exhaustive logs of software updates' thus not violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
iii) WP:BEFORE
Also, in spite of WP:BEFORE C . being very much pertinent, the AfD nomination was made.
iv) Alternative of Deletion
The article does not violate any 14 points mentioned in WP:DEL-REASON or any of G1-G14 or A1-A11 per WP:CSD. Further per WP:NOTBUILT, since the article has been in the process of improvement, also per WP:DEL#CONTENT, it should be kept.
v) Good Faith and New Comer
Besides I request to consider WP:FAITH and WP:DBN.
Comment: I have already requested the article to be moved to draftspace since in the mean time I could not execute the planned enrichment of the article due to reigning exigent situation, otherwsise there would have been no requirement for this debate. AranyaPathak (talk) 15:18, 8 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. Salvio 13:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McHugh (Author)

[edit]
Paul McHugh (Author) (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 an author and journalist that fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Some of the sources added to the article are self-published and articles he wrote about some stuffs.

From a search on GNEWS, results are barely accessible. Lapablo (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--None of the articles are self-published. Emitchell62000 (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)emitchell62000[reply]

--Two of the books are, and I can certainly remove these, although this does not seem to be a requirement in any of the Wikipedia documentation. Emitchell62000 (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)emitchell62000[reply]

--Can you please explain what you mean by "barely accessible"? I have cited quite a few articles that are easily available from notable newspapers; a search of Google News using the author's name and San Francisco Chronicle produces results that are quite accessible: https://news.google.com/search?q=%22paul%20mchugh%22%20%22san%20francisco%20chronicle%22&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen Emitchell62000 (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)emitchell62000[reply]

--Articles written for the Miami Herald are not available online. I can remove this mention if you object to it for this reason. Emitchell62000 (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)emitchell62000[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, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 13:18, 8 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. Salvio 13:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Hussain (politician)

[edit]
Tahir Hussain (politician) (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:BLP and WP:GNG on multiple counts: WP:BLPCRIME (not convicted), WP:NPOL (only a councillor, not an MLA, so he's not notable). Also blatant violations of WP:BLP. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Tahir Hussain's confession on Delhi riots: 'Wanted to teach Hindus a lesson'". www.timesnownews.com. Retrieved 2020-08-14.
  2. ^ "Tahir Hussain admits to planning north-east Delhi riots: Police report". Hindustan Times. 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-14.
  3. ^ Bedi, Aneesha (2020-08-03). "Ex-AAP councillor Tahir Hussain 'confessed' he planned Delhi riots, police says in report". ThePrint. Retrieved 2020-08-14.
  4. ^ PTI (2020-04-22). "Suspended AAP councillor Tahir Hussain booked under UAPA in connection with Delhi riots". ThePrint. Retrieved 2020-08-14.
  5. ^ Aug 3, ANI / Updated; 2020; Ist, 10:29. "Suspended AAP Councillor Tahir Hussain admits his role in Delhi violence, says police | Delhi News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2020-08-14. {{cite web}}: |last2= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ "Ex-AAP Leader Tahir Hussain Admits His Role In Delhi Violence: Police". NDTV.com. Retrieved 2020-08-14.
  7. ^ "Delhi riots:Suspended AAP Councillor Tahir Hussain's two employees key witnesses against him". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2020-08-14.

I disagree with deletion of this article. [27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Branstarx3 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* no Disagree Tahir Hussain is highly popular and has been regularly covered in press, so much so that he is a household name. There are hundreds of news articles mentioning him. Being a corporator or MLA is not relevant here. There is no policy that says that any politician cannot have a WP article if he is accused in a crime. In fact, it is the other way around. What WP General Notability Guidelines indicate is that "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." Hundreds of news articles mentioning Tahir Hussain are itself evidence enough that article is merited. Also, the condition of WP:BLP1E is not met here "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." 2020 Delhi Riots are significant and individual's role is well documented. Sachin.cba (talk)

    • He has only confessed, that too in police custody. (As 331dot said, if he had legal counsel while in custody, they would have told him to never confess). Confessions can be retracted in court (or even rejected). The reason I keep mentioning WP:BLPCRIME is because no court has yet made any judgment or even mention about him. If and when they do, we can reconsider about this article. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*** WP:BLPCRIME mentions not to include material "For individuals who are not public figures". Tahir Hussain is an elected politician. WP:BLPCRIME mentions that "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Hence, an article based on reliable sources on Tahir Hussain does not, in any way, violates WP:BLPCRIME. Allegation of involvement in riots by Tahir Hussain is noteworthy, relevant and well documented. Therefore, this article cannot be deleted. Sachin.cba (talk) 15:09, 15 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 20:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lennie Mayne

[edit]
Lennie Mayne (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 effort to handle longest WP:notability tagged articles. No indication of wp:notability. Tagged for WP:notability for 11 years. The two sources are mere mentions that he directed. Could not find anything more than that in a search. So 99% of the article is unsourced. Most notable thing he did was directing 4 Dr. Who episodes. So I had to set my Dr. Who fandom aside to nominate this.  :-) North8000 (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 12:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:28, 11 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) 14:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shruti Reddy

[edit]
Shruti Reddy (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:NACTOR - up-and-coming actress with only one significant role. No indication that the subject is notable as a model, speaker or YouTuber. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 12:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 12:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 12:13, 8 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Chester F.C. season

[edit]
2015–16 Chester F.C. season (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:NSEASONS as they were playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 12:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:23, 9 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Gateshead F.C. season

[edit]
2015–16 Gateshead F.C. season (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 team was playing in the National League and so fails WP:NSEASONS. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 12:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:23, 9 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Grimsby Town F.C. season

[edit]
2015–16 Grimsby Town F.C. season (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)

Clear WP:NSEASONS fail as the team was playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 12:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:22, 9 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 20:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Tiwari (IPS)

[edit]
Vinay Tiwari (IPS) (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, only in the news because of the high profile case of Sushant Singh Rajput. Zoodino (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 12:47, 8 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 merge to List of Thomas & Friends non-rail vehicles#Terence. czar 04:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terence the Tractor

[edit]
Terence the Tractor (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 prodded it with the following rationale: "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 English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded with no helpful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Yet another example that PRODs are vulnerable to abuse. Let's discuss then - can anyone find anything to salvage this? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:02, 31 July 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 02:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page already contains some interesting details and sources and the nomination says nothing about these. I'm therefore not convinced that the article has actually been read as the nomination just seems to be a cut/paste drive-by performed in haste using Twinkle. There's more to be found such as The Politics of Popular Culture; The Beatles: The Ultimate Recording Guide (Ringo recorded a track about the subject); Thomas and Friends Character Encyclopedia; &c. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE and these all indicate that we should not be deleting this. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This character has not received significant coverage in reliable sources; full stop. The ones mentioned above are casual mentions and namedrops. A redirect wouldn't work, per WP:XY. (That being said, while we're tossing around essays, perhaps there should be one along the lines of WP:DON'TINSULTNOMINATORSBECAUSEYOUDISAGREE.) Ravenswing 15:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or merge and admittedly allowing some special pleading, based on what I'm observing at similar AFDs. I just don't see the sources to support an article like this. The fiction is obviously very notable, and if you could even find a single source, it should be covered somewhere, and probably somewhere else. The List of Thomas & Friends characters is in a sorry state, as are the linked / sub-articles. I suggest a merge because there's a shred of primary sourced material (not independent enough to support notability) that could be WP:PRESERVED at a broader list. If there's a chance at making this better than a fandom wiki, it's to work on a better quality list. Jontesta (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of sources by YorkshireLad

Of the sources in the article, I can't find any way to view the inside of the book; the webpage fails the "reliable" part of WP:GNG, being someone's personal site. Of the sources that Andrew Davidson lists above:

  • The mention in The Politics of Popular Culture fails the sigcov part of WP:GNG. There is one sentence that mentions Terence, noting that an episode of the series features a moral lesson involving him. I'm not even sure how this could be cited in the article: "in one episode Thomas makes fun of Terence" would be WP:FANCRUFT, which would leave "like all the other characters, Terence is used to teach moral lessons to children", which is singling out this character unnecessarily.
  • The mention in The Beatles... is also a passing mention: the track that Ringo recorded appears just to be him narrating the story "Terence the Tractor", so isn't a fact about Terence beyond the fact that Ringo Starr narrated T&F stories.
  • Thomas & Friends Character Encyclopedia is plainly not independent of the subject, given that it's an officially-licensed T&F work. Though I'm sure there's a metaphysical argument to be made about whether that constitutes poor Terence's involvement...

So for sources that count towards WP:GNG, we have at best one so far, the book that's mentioned in the article already. That is a biography of the Rev. W. Awdry, who wrote the books, so I find it hard to believe that it contains more than a passing mention either. (My suspicion, based on what it's used for, is that a copy of a map is included in the book, and that's the extent of the mentions of Terence.) Even if more, however, we've only got one source, so that's a failure of WP:GNG. I've looked on Google Books myself, and all I can find are either episode listings or lists of characters, which suggests Terence is fairly WP:MILL. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 14:09, 8 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 Air India Express Flight 1344. Any usable content may be merged from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Sathe

[edit]
Deepak Sathe (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)

BLP1E clearly as this person fails WP:NMIL ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 12:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BLP1E won't stand as he is not alive Jehowahyereh (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong: "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died". WWGB (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BLP1E does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. Here there are almost 100+ reliable news articles confirming his death. So WP:BLP1E won't stand. Jehowahyereh (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about WP:BLP1E. I said that WP:BLP applies to this individual, and it does, per WP:BDP. Even though he's deceased, Wikipedia policy continues to treat him as a living person for the time being, as far as the very strict rules regarding what is and is not permissible. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BLP1E won't stand as he is not alive Jehowahyereh (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong: "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died". WWGB (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BLP1E does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. Here there are almost 100+ reliable news articles available online confirming his death. So WP:BLP1E won't stand. Jehowahyereh (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong and responding to every comment that you disagree with doesn't strengthen your argument or convince anyone, its Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (or redirect) It's not unreasonable to think that enough refs could be uncovered that he would eke by. As it stands, WP:BLP applies to this person, and as such, I believe erring on the side of deletion is appropriate. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BLP1E won't stand as he is not alive Jehowahyereh (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong: "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died". WWGB (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BLP1E does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. Here there are almost 100+ reliable news articles available online confirming his death. So WP:BLP1E won't stand. Jehowahyereh (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This individual doesn’t at all meet Wikipedia’s criteria for notability and you can’t just create a page of a pilot who crashed a plane everytime, if that was the case please go and create page for every single pilot in every crash till today, also many of them had far more notability and military role, especially the Russian ones but even then they don’t have a article of there own!! So please delete this unless this applies to every other pilots out there! Vallentunar (talk) 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    • This rationale is nothing but straw-man arguments and "other stuff exists/doesn't exist" rhetoric. I'm in favor of deleting this article, but nonsense like this is not at all conducive to a deletion discussion. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • well tbh in what way shall i make any further argument to add to it? from what i see, the details of this page should be included in the page for the accident as part of the body or a subcategory, not a page in itself because the individual doesn’t note any notable significance to receive a page! Also I am new on Wikipedia so apologies if I don’t know how things work in deletion talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallentunar (talk • contribs) 00:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is I who owes you an apology. I should have considered that possibility, but alas, I'm an asshole. I'd prefer to discuss this at your talk page (or mine), rather than clutter this page with further back-and-forth that isn't germane to discussion concerning this specific article. Your comments were obviously made in good faith, and I apologize for being such a miserable fuck. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one event Spiderone 21:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 4th and 5th points of WP:SOLDIER met. He has commanded a troupe for Kargil war. Jehowahyereh (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BLP1E does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. Here there are almost 100+ reliable news articles available online confirming his death. So WP:BLP1E won't stand. Jehowahyereh (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sathe had no press coverage until his death in this particular plane crash. BLP1E definitely applies. And please stop harassing users whom you don't agree with by reposting your same response over and over again. Much appreciated. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 16:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was making my valid points and I thought I have to reply to them individually.Sorry if it acted as harrasment for you. I have been polite in my comments as well. Between WP:BLP1E clearly says it is not applicable for people who are confirmed dead by reliable news sources. So can you please point out how WP:BLP1E is applicable here ? Jehowahyereh (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP applies to recently deceased persons, under the WP:BDP clause. Therefore, the article (as well as anything about this individual that is discussed anywhere else on en-Wiki) is subject to the WP:BLP policy, and as such, WP:BLP1E is a perfectly reasonable criterion against which to measure notability. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThen why it is clearly mentioned in WP:BLP that it is not applicable to dead person whose death is confirmed by reliable news source ? and why the heading is Biography of Living people ? and why can't it be Biography of People ? Jehowahyereh (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first THREE sentences of WP:BDP and you will find the answer. WWGB (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your first question is: "it isn't". Your second question is answered above by WWGB. As for your third question, well... ... all donkeys are asses, but not all asses are donkeys. Do you see? Joefromrandb (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes I got the answer from WP:BDP, it is exactly same as my contemplation and understanding. It says "Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime" which means WP:BLP cannot be applied here Jehowahyereh (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, can you not see this: "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death". Sheesh! Anyway, the closing admin will apply the correct policies and guidelines, and will not be swayed by your misinterpretation. WWGB (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deepak Sathe is a recipient of President's Medal, I have added with reference in the page Jehowahyereh (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... awarded by the president of the National Defence Academy, so essentially a training award (and it does not have a Wikipedia article). WWGB (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
President’s Medal is not a distinguished service honour given in India, unlike the ones given for service/on line of duty. As WWGB mentioned, it is given to cadets by the aforementioned military academy, NDA, so it doesn’t count as being notable. Vallentunar (talk)
comment It's not given by President of NDA, It is given by President of India. Here is a reference article - [28] Jehowahyereh (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. The article merely says the President attended the passing-out. It does NOT say the medal is awarded by him. WWGB (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Removed from the page as they're non-notable and do not have articles. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 18:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sathe did not lead a command, as required for notability; India failed to develop an AWAC system. So, wrong, wrong, wrong. WWGB (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Granted by a state, not the national government, so national significance not established. WWGB (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for at least admitting the State significance Jehowahyereh (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jehowahyereh, not sure why you're hellbent beyond belief at wanting to keep this article, but you need to chill. Your harping on almost every comment or vote that you don't agree with is tiresome and disruptive to the discussion, and you're clearly not changing anyone's mind on the topic. I'm not telling you to shut up altogether, but instead to let things take their course. Thanks. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 17:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beemer69, Today, I learned a new way to say shutup, politely :) - The9Man (Talk) 06:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Textbook definition of BLP1E. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Air India Express Flight 1344. It is arguable if he meets BLP1E or not, mainly because he is known outside a single event. I still don't think that other events brought him significant coverage thus I am supporting merge. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to redirect either as it's a plausible search term Spiderone 13:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point, which means even if there were BLP or other issues, Delete and redirect would be best. Pinging my old friend User:WilliamJE, since he was the one who nominated the article; if William agrees that "Redirect as a plausible search term" is an acceptable outcome, I think we should all be able to go home early. There's obviously clear consensus that this should not be a standalone article. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That policy literally says that recently deceased people count as BLP: "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside." Also, it's been 9 days, so hopefully an admin will be along to delete this soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 17 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 Italian Social Movement. T. Canens (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Movement of Social Unity

[edit]
Italian Movement of Social Unity (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)

Poor reference. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see the proposal concerns the deletion of the page of this party, which, although small and short-lived, contributed to the foundation of the MSI... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notably notability isn't temporary, if the party was notable albeit for a short period it remains notable. Having a quick glance in google books indicates that there are quite a lot of entries for MIUS. The tumultuous period of transition from WWII fascism to parliamentary neo-fascism seems to have attracted significant scholarly attention. --Soman (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Italian Social Movement (as there isn't anything sourced worth to merge, and it is already mentioned there). It fails GNG and was never notable on its own. It lasted little over a month, and during this time it was more a virtual entity than a real party/movement. All the sources, including the "lot of entries" mentioned by Soman, are brief mentions related to the foundation of the Italian Social Movement, none of them being significant coverage. Also the sources currently in the bibliography are faked as to make it appear the movement was notable: eg. the link to the book La Destra in Italia: 1945-1969 highlightens 18 citations, but they are citations for fronte dell'italiano. This movement/party is mentioned in the book just once: [29], and given the nature and the very specific subject of the book, as well as its extensive length (695 pages), if it was really notable it would had been covered in a couple dozen pages. --151.54.248.238 (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Italian Social Movement. I agree that there isn't worth merging as far as the sources are concerned, but it's still worth a redirect IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:08, 18 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. Salvio 16:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anupama Pathak

[edit]
Anupama Pathak (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 clear case of WP:BLP1E.WP:NACTOR should be notable for their work, not for doing suicide. All the coverages are due to her death in these Covid-19 times. She hardly did any major work to be notable. - The9Man (Talk) 10:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from author – Anupama Pathak is a Indian Film and tv actress she also committed sucide due to financial issues. I thought she must be her existence because people searching for this matter and it's very recent sucide case after Sushant Singh Rajpoot and in this covid 19 pandemic people also looking fact and want to know about her so I consider a article for her. Lot of media house also writing about her death and it's a basic need for a article. So I thought her article should be live forever. If there is need any change or its not under wikipedia policies you can delete it.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMEINDIA (talk • contribs) 18:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from author
Lifetime Achievement (Notability) for her work in Bhojpri Cine and tv serials Anupama Pathak
Its about her lifetime achievement as per media saying in there articles she is working in Bhojpuri films and tv serials and after her death her lifetime work is enough and its very essential or trending in meantime so i thought it must be move to her name permanently.
She is notable for her lifetime work in Bhojpuri films and tv serials.
Point 1. TOI said she have been worked in several Bhojpuri movies.
Point 2. as per Mumbai mirror news that Anupama was the elected leader of the Director’s Association.
3. Point 3 Pathak had moved to Mumbai and worked in Bhojpuri films and TV shows.
Thank you
User:FMEINDIA —Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1 ref. [30][31]
Point 2 ref. [32][33]
@FMEINDIA:Your references just proof the case of WP:BLP1E further. - The9Man (Talk) 06:37, 11 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 20:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lasya (anchor)

[edit]
Lasya (anchor) (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:NACTOR – does not have significant roles in multiple productions, as their IMDb entry shows. The sources used are gossip pages with no meaningful discussion of her career as an actor/presenter. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 09:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 09:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 09:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 09:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 09:53, 8 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) 14:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wine Caste

[edit]
Wine Caste (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)

Supposedly a concept in wine cultivation. I am skeptical about whether it exists (WP:V), at least in English. Searches for the term result in texts about wine in the context of human caste systems. The article is tagged as unsourced since 2015, and sourced only to a broken link to a Portuguese website. Sandstein 09:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 09:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Changing my vote in light of what follows. Draftify I've never come across this term, but from the article's description (such as it is — I've read it three times now, and still not sure what it's trying to say!) it could just mean grape variety, in which case 'caste' may be a regional term or simply a mis-translation. And since the one and only 'reference' doesn't seem to work, that's no help either. While waiting for an oenology expert to come along, perhaps we should draftify this, to give the creating editor an opportunity to work on it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yep, looks like this 'caste' does mean variety: the English article List of grape varieties links to the Portuguese one titled 'Lista de castas de uvas' (uva meaning grape, at least in Italian and Spanish). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a mistranslation. Agree with DoubleGrazing, per this and lista de castas de uvas. Would note that the only reference in the article is in Portuguese. (It's a dead link now—I think the first link I included is what it became). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searches for Oneology and Caste produce results similar to varna (caste) in India. Whiteguru (talk) 08:35, 12 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Flavia Constantia

[edit]
I Flavia Constantia (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 pass WP:GNG for a stand alone article. WP:NOTEVERYTHING "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" If someone is feeling ambitious it could merge into Notitia Dignitatum but I think it unnecessary detail in a good article.   // Timothy :: talk  08:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  08:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  08:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. de:Legio I Flavia Constantia lists enough additional sources to expand and meet the GNG. And really, when something survives in the historical record for nearly 2,000 years, it's bound to be notable. This isn't the kind of thing our notability policies are there to keep out. – Joe (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really hate this argument. Some historical people really are non-notable, and Wikipedia has way too many articles that are just paragraphs of context used to fluff out the simple fact that someone is named in a document but we know nothing more about them. It takes more than just the vicissitudes of document survival to render a person notable. Agricolae (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this article is about a military unit, not a person, being a roman legion confers an indication of wikinotability (see WP:MILUNIT) but without more sources forthcoming, what there is appears to be suggesting that because there was a Legio II Flavia Constantia there must have been a I Flavia Constantia (btw there found this: "Thus Legion I Flavia Constantia, which shares its shield design with II Flavia Constantia Thebeorum, was originally IV Galeriana Thebeorum.", not sure if is useful), it doesn't look good. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of derailed myself there by being too specific in my explanation, but the point remains - mere existence + extreme age ≠ automatic notability, whether it be a person, military unit, geographical feature, or anything else. Agricolae (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article with the sources from dewiki. I don't think its existence is just inferred from the fact that there was a II Flavia Constantia; as the article says, it's mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum and apparently took part in the Siege of Singara (360). – Joe (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
me bad:), yes it is listed in the Notitia Dignitatum ie. "Balistarii seniores. Prima Flavia Constantia. Secunda Flavia Constantia Thebeorum. .. Legiones comitatenses: .. Prima Flavia Constantia. Secunda Flavia Constantia Thebaeorum.". Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really love this argument. It goes right to the heart of what an encyclopedia is. Too many people seem not to realise that nearly all articles in nearly all encyclopedias are very short. Don't you remember what print encyclopedias were like before Wikipedia put them out of business? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it goes to the heart of what the difference is between an encyclopedia and a prosopography. The latter is intended to catalog everybody/everything in a class. The former is not. Having a bunch of articles just to say that nothing is known about the subjects but that they appear on one document without further details is entirely unencyclopedic. There are GNG for a reason. Agricolae (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can legitimately disagree on what does and doesn't count as an encyclopaedia article, but I don't think the GNG supports your argument here Agricolae. You may not like "fluff context", but many historians do, and if they write multiple reliable sources about that fluff (as I think is the case here) it makes it notable. In any case perhaps we should turn this discussion away from the abstract and back to the availability of sources on this particular subject. – Joe (talk) 12:57, 10 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 Injection moulding. Tone 12:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sink marks (injection moulding defect)

[edit]
Sink marks (injection moulding defect) (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)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:59, 8 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 Injection moulding. Tone 12:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-drying (injection moulding)

[edit]
Pre-drying (injection moulding) (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)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 10 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 20:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isín

[edit]
Isín (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)
  • Merge into Sabiñánigo. WP:GEOLAND give the presumption of notability but a presumption is not a guarantee even if WP:RS do actually exist. Per WP:N: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article." WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful."   // Timothy :: talk  08:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge per above: A locality or neighborhood is not automatically notable, and the Sabiñanigo municipality is the legally recognized populated place with significant coverage. Reywas92Talk 06:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are already a large number of stub articles orientated around settlements of similar population and size within municipalities. If Isín is to be merged, then they should too, e.g. Bellara. For clarification, Isín is not a neighbourhood of Sabiñánigo, it could be better rephrased as a village. A deletion would be justifiable due to WP:NOTEVERYTHING, but not merged because it would require for a significant number of articles to be too. Castilruiz (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  08:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Per WP:GEOLAND. "Sabiñanigo municipality is the legally recognized populated place" What does this even mean? Isín is a unidad poblacional of the municipality (INE 005500) [34]. It has even an entry in the Madoz dictionary (Volume IX, page 458). We cannot pretend that there are no "legally recognized populated places" below the municipality level. That's a travesty. PS: Ffs, it was even a municipality before the 1857 census [35].--Asqueladd (talk) 13:57, 10 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. Passes WP:NMUSIC and has released on national chart Gaon Music Chart (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SSAK3

[edit]
SSAK3 (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 project group, like Unnies, a project K-Pop girl group formed thru a Korean reailty show Sister's Slam Dunk. Fails to qualify WP:MUSICBIO. SkyHigher (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is possibly an accidental duplicate or sockpuppet vote. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SkyHigher (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The above voter is correct about the Korean charts; see also [36]. I must also point out that the nominator committed the WP:OTHERSTUFF fallacy. Despite their cheesy origins, this group has gotten media coverage in Korea because it is made up of longtime established media personalities; see [37], [38], [39]. Also it's not a teen group; the youngest member is 38. I'm not a big fan of the trend in Wikipedia for short articles merely announcing the existence of K-Pop groups, but this particular nomination needed more effort during the WP:BEFORE process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not defending my own article creation, but when I created the article, the Korean and Chinese wiki pages were already created. Based on the popularity of the group, I was surprised that the English ver. wasn't being created. The comparison with other group projects like UNNIE is totally of a different league. SSAK3 is also producing physical albums - something which other groups formed in Korean reality shows haven't done before. This is the clear distinct of the difference. SSAK3 (Korean: 싹쓰리), their korean name/term including logo are also currently pending trademark application on KIPRIS (Korea Intellectual Property Rights Information Service), UNNIES is not even a registered trademark. As of the time of writing this, their song has been & is still placed 1st on major digital charts in Korea. Yienshawn (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 2 (only one criteria needed) with high charting releases on a national chart as confirmed in reliable sources so they should be included, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:24, 15 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 redirect's undeletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Mbolela

[edit]
Christian Mbolela (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 musician, most sources are unreliable, fails WP:GNG Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesh Prasad Tiwari

[edit]
Ganesh Prasad Tiwari (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:GNG , WP:NPROF and WP:NBIO. Sources are not reliable Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:45, 8 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) 14:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Imperial 3

[edit]
The Imperial 3 (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)

Purely a puff piece about a proposed building stitched together from press releases and gutter "journalism" that rehashes those press releases to drum up attention for the fancy wet dreams of Bombay land mafia. It has been padded with "Eco-friendly design features" even before a lick of concrete or glass or whatever has been laid. This is WP:CRYSTALBALL and fails Wiki's notability guidelines horribly. MaysinFourty (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:54, 9 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) 14:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Mayhak

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Helen Mayhak (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)

Very local political figure fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. KidAd (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 9 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francistown Senior Secondary School

[edit]
Francistown Senior Secondary 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)

Non-notable local secondary school. Both sources in the article are primary and I was unable to find anything in a WP:BEFORE that would pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. As an alternative to deletion it could be merged or redirected to Francistown. As that seems to be the preferred thing to do with non-notable secondary schools. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to be confused about. It's called a spelling error ;) As far as the second source goes, it's an interview and interviews aren't usually considered usable for notability because they are sorta primary sources. The topic of the article, about how they suspended Saturday classes, is extremely trivial topic as anyway even if it wasn't an interview though. That kind of thing doesn't pass what WP:NORG considers a trivial topic, anymore then changes in my local grocery stores hours would, and for good reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not an interview. It is a news report which includes, but is not limited to, reporting of what the head teacher said at a meeting. And the topic of the article is not the suspension of Saturday classes. Reporting of that constitutes well under 10% of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your really splitting hairs over semantics. One definition of an interview is "a meeting of people face to face" and a school meeting would qualify as one. Even if he's not sitting down with the reporter who is directly asking him questions. 99% of the article is still written from what he is saying about the school. So, it's still not a "secondary" source of information. Since it's still coming from someone directly connected to the school. Which is the important thing as far as the guidelines are concerned. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews involve quotes. So, I'm not really sure what your point is. It's still an interview. Also, two of your sources are from the same news outlet as the other one. So they only count as a single source per the notability guidelines. Since to be multiple sources for the sake of notability they can't be associated with each other. As far as the other source go, I'd say it's an extremely trivial topic. The school preformed bad, then they improved. Woho. That could go for any school. The same thing happened with my local community college and high school, which they both got media coverage for (especially the college because it almost got closed down because of it). I wouldn't call either one notable because their students did crappy and got a little media attention for it though. I'm pretty sure neither would pass WP:NORG either. I'm pretty sure student performance would fall under the WP:AUD thing and "coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies (see also #Audience below)." --Adamant1 (talk) 04:01, 10 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 20:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Maynard

[edit]
Dave Maynard (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:NBIO; lacks sources Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why an editor thinks that this broadcaster lacks notability is a mystery. He is a New England celebrity, a member of the Massachusetts Broadcasters Hall of Fame, the WBZ Radio Hall of Fame, and is the best known broadcaster in WBZ history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cg2112 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Potato, potato. The problem is that all the coverage on him occurred after he died and because of it, but for someone to be notability there has to be sustained coverage of them over a certain amount of time and not just in relation to a single thing. Which I would argue a bunch of articles about a guy who died would be. The articles are literally titled "Veteran Boston broadcaster Dave Maynard dies at 82." So you can't claim it's not what they are about. That they also happen to mention he was a broadcaster in them is pretty inconsequential to the actual subject of them, his death. Especially that particular article. Which is extremely short. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:14, 10 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 20:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Noodle Companies

[edit]
The Noodle Companies (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 that doesn’t satisfy WP:ORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search only shows press releases & sponsored posts hence indicative of unreliable sources. Celestina007 20:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cited multiple reliable sources. Also, if you Google the appropriate search terms you will find many more. I am getting my mind around them and adding them to the article.Classafelonymonkey (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify this brand new page while the author continues to improve the article. The sources look pretty promotional to me, but I'm willing to give the author a chance—just not in main space. pburka (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When this was originally nominated I decided to give the creator of it time to improve the article so it would pass WP:NCORP, because I thought maybe it could. It seems that never happened though. Since the sources are still bad and trivial. Plus, the article is still written in an extremely run of the mill way. Which I don't think can be improved enough to make it warrant an article. I don't think drafting it so it can be fixed is viable option at this point either, because the creator has already had enough time to try and improve it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:26, 8 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 11:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deeplearning4j

[edit]
Deeplearning4j (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)

What makes this piece of software notable per WP:NSOFT/WP:GNG? My BEFORE did not find any reviews. No awards are listed.There are few hits on Google Books, but I don't see any analysis of the software's importance, all I see are just few pages in manuals about how to use it. There are also some mentions on Google Scholar, but the cited articles have rather low citations (30 is best and comes from a Russian conference, then one paper has 15 citations, and then it gets worse), and the academic papers in question don't discuss Deeplearning4j, they just use it. In other words, it seems to a niche and non-notable tool (software). The article has been tagged as 'promotional' since 2017 (tag added by User:DGG). and given that the (now inactive) article's creator also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Nicholson (entrepreneur) which is about to be deleted for similar reasons, I think we should scrutinize all of their creations for similar problems (lack of notability/advertising).PS. I just checked and they have created 15 articles, and as of now, 7 have been deleted already... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Michaelmalak: I don't see how 4th is dedicated to the subject? It does not mention it in the title or the blurb. All other books are published by Packt which is not described as self-publishing; but I am not really familiar with the publishing house. I Amazon-looked inside one (Java Deep Learning Projects: Implement 10 real-world deep learning applications using Deeplearning4j and open source APIs). It is written by PhD student, which does inspire me (in my field books are usually written by people who got their PhD already but maybe in computer sciences it is different?...). The book also contains a bio of the reviewer, who is an industry professional with a Masters degree. For Java Deep Learning Cookbook: Train neural networks for classification, NLP, and reinforcement learning using Deeplearning4j there is no information about degrees of the author, there are two reviewers only one of which has that information (Masters). And for Hands-On Artificial Intelligence with Java for Beginners: Build intelligent apps using machine learning and deep learning with Deeplearning4j, the author has a PhD, through this book did not provide information about the reviewers. Anyway, they are obviously textbooks which either use the software and/or teach how of use it to a varying extent (from book to book). Thank you for finding the sources. The question is, are they reliable? Reviews on the Internet vary but for example from "Packt books are written by people with a tenuous grasp on the English language and don't seem to be edited at all before being released. The books are VERY low quality and often full of incorrect information.". Now, there are also good reviews online but I am always wary of them as you never know which have been paid for, but, while I acknowledge computer sciences has different habits than my field, I'd be careful of using a textbook written by someone who only did a Masters. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: Packt books are indeed not held in high esteem; they emphasize quantity and time-to-market over quality. But they are in print and they do sell as people do find them useful. The fourth book is by a publisher held in higher esteem, Manning (disclosure: I have a book published with them), which would be second publisher from the top in the genre (the top being O'Reilly). That fourth book has a "Look Inside" on Amazon, and I encourage you to look at the first half of the first paragraph of section 1.4 on page 12.Michaelmalak (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Michaelmalak: I would suggest you ping the other participants here who voted 'delete' and see what they think. I admit you found better sources than I thought exist, and I am not so strongly convinced this needs to be deleted now as I was before, but still, I find the coverage borderline - just not sure which side to lean on now... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: Overall, I'm detecting a set of expectations that is unwarranted both in principle and relative to Wikipedia guidelines. DeepLearning4j is a tool for practitioners, not researchers, so it is unreasonable to expect PhD authors to write about it. Would we expect PhD authors for books on, for example, Log4j or Hibernate (framework)? Along the same lines, the consumers of Packt books are looking for hands-on implementation guides, so that is why we see books, as User:Adamant1 points out, that are titled like Using DeepLearning4j for (gasp) Deep Learning, as opposed to waxing philosophical on the framework in isolation of ways to use it. WP:NSOFT contains neither of these proffered provisions: PhD authors or books divorced from all practical use.Michaelmalak (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not expecting a book that waxes philosophically about deeplearning4j, just one that is exclusively about it as a tool and doesn't just use it as a "framework" to teach another topic. There's a pretty strong cvase IMO that people reading any of those books are doing so to learn about deep learning and could really give a crap less what framework the books are using to teach it to them. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, good point. A topic that is the subject of a textbook is likely notable, the tool that is used to teach that topic used by the said textbook is much less so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:08, 10 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) 01:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion would benefit from further input regarding the sources that have been presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The article just seems to be a trivial listing of features and Wikipedia isn't a directory or software manual. The claimed "entire print books written on it" aren't about it either. Brief passing mentions of it in books about Scala or whatever just don't cut it. So, I see zero about this that warrants an article or passes the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Adamant1 writes "The claimed 'entire print books written on it' aren't about it either." This is a false statement. There are four entire print books written on it, three of which have DeepLearning4j in the title. The Scala book has a chapter on it, as I clearly wrote, and was not counted in the list of four entire print books. Michaelmalak (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it is that the "four books written on it" are about something else AND Deeplearning4j. Maybe they "use" Deeplearning4j, but it doesn't make them about "Deeplearning4j" anymore then a book that is in English is a book "about" English. Let alone in-depth coverage of the English language as a topic. Or to put it another way, any "how to do X with Y" type guide is more about X then Y. Especially with computer programming books. At least that's how I see it. Adamant1 (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is an odd argument that a book that has "DeepLearning4j" in its title is not about DeepLearning4j. WP:NSOFT makes no such stipulation. One of its four ways to establish notability is "It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers." ...which DeepLearning4j satisfies. Michaelmalak (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think it's an odd argument. Like you say a way to establish notability is if "It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers" and the subject of all those books is deep learning. Maybe you do that by using DeepLearning4j, but people who are buying those books are mainly buying them to learn about deep learning, not to get a deep dive into how to use DeepLearning4j. Otherwise they would be books like "Mastering C++ Game Development" or I'd even say "C++ Game Development Cookbook." More then half the books you cited don't even have Deeplearning4j in the title anyway and none of them are exclusively "how to use Deeplearning4j" books. The good thing about this is that we can disagree though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I find Michaelmalak's sources and arguments to be convincing. Multiple books with titles like Hands-On Artificial Intelligence with Java for Beginners: Build intelligent apps using machine learning and deep learning with Deeplearning4j obviously indicate that Deeplearning4j is worth writing a book about. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:41, 10 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 AdventHealth. Tone 20:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Littleton Adventist Hospital

[edit]
Littleton Adventist Hospital (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)

Local hospital that doesn't seem to be notable. Since the sources in the article are primary and I was unable to find anything in a WP:BEFORE that would pass either the WP:GNG or WP:NORG guidelines about notability. As an alternative to deletion the article could be merged or redirected to it's parent organization AdventHealth. Which seems to be the prefered way to handle non-notable Adventist hospitals.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this hospital to AdventHealth, it could become notable in the future. Catfurball (talk) 16:36, 10 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 AdventHealth. Tone 20:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AdventHealth Lake Placid

[edit]
AdventHealth Lake Placid (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 is about an extremely small local hospital that doesn't seem to be notable. Since all the sources in the article are either primary, trivial, or otherwise not reliable. Plus, I wasn't able to find anything about it in a WP:BEFORE that would pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. The only stuff out there on it seems to be extremely trivial and not notable. As an alternative to deletion it could be merged or redirected to AdventHealth. Which seems to precedent for non-notable Adventist hospitals so far. Adamant1 (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect this hospital to AdventHealth, it might never become notable. Catfurball (talk) 16:26, 10 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. Passes WP:NCOLLATH and nominator has withdrawn the AfD (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Jenkins

[edit]
Anthony Jenkins (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, fails WP:NBASE Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Note that he has not been listed at 1990 College Baseball All-America Team, despite appearing in the associated navbox. His first team selection does appear in this NCAA list, so I'll add him to the 1990 team page. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is coverage of Jenkins out there, see this, this, and this. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:08, 9 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 AdventHealth. Tone 20:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist Health Tillamook

[edit]
Adventist Health Tillamook (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 is about an extremely small local hospital that doesn't seem to notable enough to warrant an article about it. Since both the citations in the article are primary and dead links anyway. Plus, nothing comes up about in a WP:BEFORE except for routine trivial coverage. So there isn't the coverage in multiple in-depth reliable sources that it would need to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. As an alternative to deletion the article could merged or redirect to Adventist Health. Which seems to be the established way of dealing with these non-notable smaller hospitals so far. Adamant1 (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect this hospital to Adventist Health, it will most likely never become notable. Catfurball (talk) 16:28, 10 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) 14:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cappy Burnside

[edit]
Cappy Burnside (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)

Medium-sized fish in a small pond fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Only significant coverage in a local paper. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider another recent article: Stephen Johnson (minister). Please can @AleatoryPonderings: explain why we should keep one but not the other, as I'm not seeing much objective difference in the subjects' importance. If anything, Cappy made more of an impact. Note that WP:OSE states that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". Andrew🐉(talk) 07:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I'm a touch confused. Didn't you state in this diff [40] that essays are worthless and therefore should be disregarded? Why are you quoting one now as a reason not to take an action, while we're talking about consistency? Ravenswing 11:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Ravenswing is confused, here's a policy for their attention. When I posted at this AfD this morning, I mused how long it would take them to turn up and start making personal comments. I estimated 4 hours but but it only took 3. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to AfDstats, I've participated in over four thousand AfD discussions. I've nominated several dozen AfDs in the last few weeks ... which, as to that, you've participated in a number of them, so it really shouldn't come as a surprise that I'm currently active in deletion discussions. (Although I didn't file the one that closed this morning with "I disregard the opinion of Andrew Davidson because it contains personal attacks, which are not permitted (WP:NPA)" as part of the closing admin's argument.") But I still wouldn't mind a response: you are quoting an essay in defense of this article, while at the same time disparaging essays generally. Which should we take at face value? Ravenswing 12:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify My head says delete, but my heart says Cappy might have a chance as a decent local history bio. It does have some decent sources, but he may very well be WP:1E. He's certainly more notable than all of the 250,000+ football stubs put together (which is more of a reason to revise WP:NFOOTBALL and perform a purge worthy of a Hollywood movie, than keeping this). It is written like an obituary, so it needs rewriting for mainspace. Someone certainly put a lot of work into it. Maybe I just don't have the heart to kill it directly, so I'm sending it off to die the slow death of a draft.   // Timothy :: talk  07:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (switched vote). Sorry for the interruption, my Old Yeller moment has past. Well Cappy, you may not have Wikipedia, but you'll always have your bridge... (until it falls into the river due to lack of infrastructure funding).   // Timothy :: talk  11:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense. The resolution is not a primary document. It contains numerous facts about the subject's life and so is a secondary summary and analysis. Primary documents are things like the subject's birth certificate. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Far from nonsense, it is absolutely a primary source; if containing facts about a subject was enough to magically transform a document into a secondary source, birth certificates and court cases would suddenly be secondary, and this article would suddenly be flooded with "secondary" sources. As it happens, though, failure of WP:V forms no part of the nom's rationale. Failure of WP:BIO and the GNG does. For those keep proponents who claim that there is significant coverage in reliable sources, feel free to specify what those may be. For those who make OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, if you believe that there are political stub articles that do not qualify for articles, feel free to propose them for deletion.

    And I'll make one of those myself: good grief. In the county in which I live, there's a bridge named for a city councilor. There's a bridge named after a local (long, long defunct) United Spanish War Veterans post. There's a bridge named after a local Marine private who died in Vietnam. (And sure, there's a bridge named after a President.) Being the namesake for a bridge meets no notability criterion, nor should. Ravenswing 11:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • More nonsense. Per WP:SECONDARY, a secondary source is "at least one step removed from an event". The resolution was written in 2014 and details the events of the subject's life, starting with his birth in 1934, eighty years earlier. It is therefore at least one step removed from those events and so is secondary. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That a secondary source is at least one step removed from an event does not thereby follow that everything that's one step removed from an event is a secondary source. Beyond that, I'm content to let consensus do the talking here. Ravenswing 12:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete impact is only local. Important to that community but not evidenced by broader sources. I encourage contributors to focus solely on the article rather than each other. Other Wikipedians seem to be getting more lines than the subject in this debate. PainProf (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is a classic WP:REFBOMB, with few sources discussing him and the main local Exponent-Telegram source by Murray reused five times. Nice resume with activism in his local community, but this doesn't reach Wikipedia notability. There's a lot of generic highway bridges and people do like handing out memorial namesakes. Thanks Andrew D for your OSE complaints: yes, we should delete articles on athletes sourced only to statistics websites too!! Reywas92Talk 21:56, 8 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 20:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Growel's 101

[edit]
Growel's 101 (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 WP:NBUILD. A local shopping mall in the western suburb of Mumbai, nothing particularly special about it. Many trivial mentions in RS, but no significant coverage. - hako9 (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, Kandivali is fine, though I agree it could be in a much better shape. It's a major area. Apologies, I'm not sure where you're from, but to give you an example it is tantamount to saying let's delete the article on Brooklyn (US) or Hampstead (UK) or Montmartre or [insert any major area in a metropolitan city]. With a population of more than half a million, it easily passes WP:GEOLAND. Best, MaysinFourty (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a citation for the population? Half a million isn't really that much. Especially compared to Brooklyn. Which has 2.5 million. Population doesn't really matter to WP:GEOLAND anyway though. The question is if it's legally recognized or not, and doing a quick search it doesn't seem to be. If not, then it would under point 2 of WP:GEOLAND. Mainly "considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG." Including "Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods." Otherwise, it would probably be just as well mentioned in Mumbai. Which it should be anyway, but currently isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the doc I looked at for population data where it's classified as Suburban District, and here the government website where it's listed as a village. If you're convinced (I am not) and feel it deserves deletion, go ahead and nominate it. I'll be watching from the sidelines. Kind regards, MaysinFourty (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kandivali qualifies GEOLAND as legally recognized and populated place. Better to keep the discussion limited to nominated article. --Ab207 (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my apologies to all! MaysinFourty (talk) 15:32, 8 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 20:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yin Chang

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Yin Chang (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 believe this is a non notable actress. I can’t find any sources that show her as notable. Zoe1013 (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 05:08, 8 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 merge to Men's Health#Global editions. czar 07:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Men's Health (Australian magazine)

[edit]
Men's Health (Australian magazine) (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)

Minimal article with only one external source. Magazine has just ceased publication, making this entry even less relevant. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-21/elle-womens-health-ok-instyle-magazines-axed-by-bauer/12478658 Teraplane (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Men's Health (under the "Global editions" section). I note that the fact the magazine has just ceased publication is not a reason of itself for deletion, but it doesn't seem like there is sufficient notability for the Australian magazine to have its own article. Deus et lex (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there enough significance for merging? This was just one of many national versions of this magazine with not much local content, now defunct. You could list it in Global Editions with a note that it no longer exists, but seems of little value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraplane (talk • contribs) 00:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:47, 8 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. T. Canens (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crestline, Nevada

[edit]
Crestline, Nevada (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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Crestline is not notable because of WP:STATION. There is no evidence that there was a post office at this location. Crestline is not mentioned in the WPA (1941). Carlson states that Crestline was a non-agency siding and station. It could be that the Crestline Landfill is notable.
Cxbrx (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's enough newspaper coverage of Crestline to indicate that it was a community in its own right that formed around the railroad, not just a point on the railroad. This article documents a missing persons case in Crestline, and explains its function for the railroad; the same case was also covered in the Reno and Salt Lake City papers [41] [42] [43]. This listing of Lincoln County men eligible for the World War I draft includes several Crestline residents. Three more articles discuss the affairs of Crestline residents [44] [45] [46]. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 14:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Crestline was a siding or station, so WP:STATION would apply, which requires significant coverage. However, the references to which you refer are trivial coverage and many are stated as concerning employees of the railroad. If the non-notable case of the lost mother and daughter were notable, then that would not make the location notable, see WP:NOTINHERITED. For examples of sidings and section houses that have been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harney,_Nevada, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Filben,_Nevada. See Thorne, Nevada for a station that has non-trivial coverage. There were plenty of sidings in Nevada that had section houses were people lived. These locations are not typically notable because they lack non-trivial coverage from multiple sources. Cxbrx (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In thinking about this a bit more, I see that some of the Keep votes are going with the argument that Crestline was more than a station, it was also a community. However, there are many former and present ranches and mines that have trivial coverage and could be considered communities. Yet, these locales are not considered notable. In the case of Crestline, take a look at WP:GEOLAND and consider which of the criteria apply. #1 "Populated, legally recognized places" - Crestline had no local government, nor did it even have a post office. #2 "Populated places without legal recognition" needs "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources". If Crestline stays, then I'm fine with that, I'm mainly trying to have a consistent standard applied to these sidings and section houses that had people living at them. My position is that as Crestline had no post office and has no non-trivial coverage, it is not notable. Cxbrx (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TheCatalyst31's first citation supports the wye (though in the source, it is a "Y"), so I added the citation to the article. Cxbrx (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised communities, even if some people did live near the railway facility that doesn't make it a legally recognised community. If it wasn't a legally recognised community then it would have to pass the GNG, and mentions of people who lived there aren't sufficient for that - we wouldn't even be able to cite those in the article. We also don't appear to have a source which explicitly says that it's a community, and trying to infer this from mentions of people who lived there is original research. [47] pretty clearly says that it's just a facility associated with the railway and not a community. Stations or railway facilities don't have any sort of inherent notability. Hut 8.5 18:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hut 8.5. If there was a GNG pass, it might be different, but TheCatalyst31's sources are namedrops and casual mentions of the subject. Ravenswing 16:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an obvious WP:GEOLAND fail. not a legally recognized or populated place. Wm335td (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it fails WP:GEOLAND due to not being legally recognized or populated. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:09, 18 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 and redirect to Punta Cana. Salvio 16:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cap Cana

[edit]
Cap Cana (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)

It has some brief mentinos, but doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Has been in CAT:NN for over 9 years so hopefully we can get it resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dominican Republic-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:43, 8 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. czar 07:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrah's Council Bluffs

[edit]
Harrah's Council Bluffs (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)

It exists and has mentions, mainly in promotional material. Doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years. Boleyn (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources are plentiful so it comes down to notability. There's probably more to be said here about Harrah's in Iowa that's not promotional: Harrah's political influence, the abandonment of the "riverboat" requirement, its status as a employer, its revenue from another state's citizens from across the river where gambling's illegal. The article's in reasonable shape as is and already well integrated. --Lockley (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage in RS as something other than mere promotional or visitor/touristic information has been demonstrated by the Omaha World Herald article and the references supplied by Toohool above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:06, 13 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barış Özcan (YouTuber)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Barış Özcan (YouTuber) (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 was deleted back in February 2020. Back then, several concerns were raised by Otr500. Among them were the absence of a detailed section on his works and/or achievements, as well as his alleged connection to the FETO movement. None of these concerns have been addressed in this newly created article. Thus it either has to be deleted, or moved into the draft space. Keivan.fTalk 04:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those arguments were put forward back in February, and everyone agreed on the fact that the number of subscribers on YouTube doesn’t guarantee notability. As a matter of fact, the previous version, which was deleted, was a translated version of the article on the Turkish Wikipedia, but still it had major issues that needed to be fixed. This one is even worse; a stub with no detailed content. Keivan.fTalk 08:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think it should go to the draft space. To be honest, the previous version that was deleted back in February had more details and could easily be worked on. I don’t know whether it can be restored as a draft or not. Maybe you should consult an admin first, because the previous version could be expanded with much less effort I guess. Keivan.fTalk 17:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per Styyx’s request on my talk page, I have restored and draftified the original article to Draft: Barış Özcan. Please keep in mind that if either version is expanded with content (including references) from the other, we’ll need to merge the histories. Feel free to ping me if that is the case.LadyofShalott 14:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this never should have been restored as per this and should have gone through the AFC process. Having 4 million followers/likes/subscribers is an absolutely worthless metric as they can be easily manipulated but are also not an indication of coverage in independent reliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This by Yeni Akit is not a reliable source in the slightest, considering the fact that the lead of our very own article says Yeni Akit is one of the top three Turkish newspapers featuring hate speech. A source that publishes propaganda and hate speech isn't acceptable. This is nothing more than a PR puff piece and certainly isn't meaningful in depth coverage. I'll go through the rest later. Praxidicae (talk) 15:35, 11 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Themis Panou

[edit]
Themis Panou (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)

Nothing in either Greek or non-Greek media to support inclusion. The page was created by a kamikaze account, probably the same sockpuppet who is furiously active under many aliases in a film director's entries here. The text does not meet WP:NACTOR or even WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only reason for the article to remain is if the Volpi award Panou got in 2013 is considered "a well-known and significant" one (cf. WP:ANYBIO), because besides that there isn't much on him. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, winning the Volpi cup is enough for wikipedia inclusion.--RZuo (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Venice Film Festival is one of the "Big Three" European film festivals, alongside Cannes and Berlin. Volpi Cup (Coppa Volpi) is the principal award given to actors at Venice. WP:ANYBIO: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor.--RZuo (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The criteria set forth by WP:NACTOR are quite explicit: The subject must have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or a large fan base ; or a significant cult following; or made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. None of these are met by our subject. Wikipedia is not a directory of films or actors. -The Gnome (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • By searching in Greek, it turns out Θέμης Πάνου is not only a surely notable actor in the Greek cinema, but also a writer, having his book Παραθερισταί με ελαφρά αισθήματα recently nominated for 7ων Βραβείων Βιβλίου Public, and a trade unionist, running for union election. I only listed one source for each activity but you can find more by googling yourself. He's also done interviews with various Greek magazines/papers/tv in the past.
I wonder what the nominator has done to reject all these references and say Nothing in either Greek or non-Greek media to support inclusion.--RZuo (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, I speak modern Greek rather fluently. Rest assured that, before nominating, I did the necessary search. The subject of the article is a Greek actor. He had one of his books nominated for some promotional competition run by a bookstore chain. He is also a member of the actors' union. All this may be quite commendable but, once more, it does not meet the criteria set forth by WP:NACTOR, as quoted above, or WP:NCREATIVE, or even WP:GNG. There are probably two hundred Greek actors more notable in Greece than Panou. What can I do but to repeat that Wikipedia is not a directory of cinema? -The Gnome (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However notable those actors might be, none of them won the Volpi Cup. In fact, only one other Greek, Melina Mercouri in 1960, won an award given to best actors or actresses in the Big Three. Those actors The Gnome boast about would probably not be notable because Wikipedia is not a directory of cinema, but the achievements Themis Panou has had enable a wiki entry.--RZuo (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where did the plural for "achievements" come from? -The Gnome (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: The "Βραβεία Βιβλίου Public" (Public Book Awards) is a pure marketing thing promoted by the Greek retail chain of books, media and electronics "Public". ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the multiple reliable sourcing is not there to establish notability. If the awards mentioned were truly at the level to create notability we would have the multiple sourcing to go along with it to pass GNG, which is lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The contention is simply he won the best actor at a Big Three and so he should be included.
As for other roles in life, it shows he's covered by the media not only for his acting.
Those that quibble about sourcing certainly dont bother Googling, otherwise it's impossible to miss all the references.
I suppose Kathimerini is mainstream media?
Then on this newspaper alone these are just a fingertip away:
  1. https://www.kathimerini.gr/71322/article/proswpa/proskhnio/8emhs-panoy-kai-o-mprant-pit-phre-to-vraveio-sth-venetia-alla-ekeinos-epestreye-sthn-epaylh-toy-enw-egw-sto-tapeino-moy-spiti
  2. https://www.kathimerini.gr/821922/article/proswpa/synentey3eis/apo-to-a-ews-to-w-8emhs-panoy
  3. https://www.kathimerini.gr/935893/article/politismos/8eatro/8emhs-panoy-dromeas-8eatrikwn-apostasewn
  4. https://www.kathimerini.gr/1014239/article/politismos/kinhmatografos/oi-enhlikes-sto-dwmatio-se-gyrismata quote: Τον ένθερμο οπαδό της αποχώρησης από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ενωση, ρόλο που «καθρεφτίζει» τον Παναγιώτη Λαφαζάνη χωρίς να τον κατονομάζει, υποδύεται ο Θέμης Πάνου, ο μοναδικός Ελληνας ηθοποιός που έχει κερδίσει βραβείο ανδρικού ρόλου στο Φεστιβάλ Βενετίας. -> a significant role in Costa-Gavras's Adults in the Room.
  5. https://www.kathimerini.gr/1056123/article/proswpa/proskhnio/500-le3eis-me-ton-8emh-panoy
  6. https://www.kathimerini.gr/1074254/article/proswpa/proskhnio/ena-eikositetrawro-karantinas-me-ton-h8opoio-8emh-panoy
The same goes for other List_of_newspapers_in_Greece#Greek_daily_newspapers. As I have said, I only listed one source for each activity but you can find more by googling yourself. Those who care would not be fooled.--RZuo (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the person lacks the in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources to be notable. Unfortunately the stories provided by RZuo don't really work. Since according to the guidelines multiple sources from the same outlet only count as a single source. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Venice Film Festival is one of the most prestigious film festivals in the world (in Europe, only Cannes and Berlin outrank it). Every single other actor who has won the Volpi Cup for Best Actor at Venice (given since 1934 albeit with some years skipped) has a Wikipedia article. This article needs improvement but it seems unlikely that an actor who won Best Actor at Venice could not be established as notable per WP:NACTOR. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, subject fails WP:NACTOR. I was persuaded by Metropolitan90's argument as I did not see that anyone has raised a doubt over the notability of the Volpi Cup for Best Actor and it (generally) only gives out one award for each actor/actress per year. But, WP:NACTOR does not have a criteria for receiving a notable award and so this defaults to WP:GNG (at least for me) - which is not met at this time. Maybe WP:TOOSOON? Ifnord (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your point, yet RZuo has shown that Kathimerini has interviewed Panou at least five times. I understand that that might not count for much (interviews count for less than third-party profiles, and repeated coverage from the same newspaper counts for less than coverage from different sources), but it does suggest that other reliable, independent sources are likely to exist, albeit in Greek, a language I can't read. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:11, 16 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. czar 07:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepika Dhiman

[edit]
Deepika Dhiman (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 athlete who fails WP:NSPORTS. Article was created by a sockfarm who removed original PROD. Most of the sources are "rankings pages" and the ranking doesn't show any type of notability (ex. 160 and 117). -- Dane talk 03:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG. --Ab207 (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and all of the notability criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE. Coverage falls under routine sports reporting. She is currently not ranked in the top 150 in qualifying for either of her possible events at the Tokyo Olympics. Her first place finishes at the 2018 USA Open Karate championships came in divisions with no other entrants [72]. According to the WKF[73] she has won one match in WKF adult competition in sparring and one in kata since 2012 (that's one match, not tournament). There's no supporting evidence for a claim of WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:35, 10 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

City Lade Shopping Mall

[edit]
City Lade Shopping 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)

Tried to prod, but it was contested with the reasoning that it passes WP:NBUILD. It doesn't pass any notability criteria, including NBUILD, so i'm bringing it here. Thanks Zindor (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Zindor (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the de-prodder of the prod on this notable shopping mall. It is one of the largest shopping malls in what is Norway's third largest city of Trondheim. I have added RS to show that the mall passes WP:NBUILD#2. This is a notable relatively large shopping mall with RS and it houses 74 separate businesses. WP:N WP:V. I will seek out more RS in foreign language later. Lightburst (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst:NBUILD#2 requires multiple instances of significant and reliable third-party coverage.
Here's an analyis of the latest references you added to the article.
  • 1 Veidekke was an involved construction contractor. Primary source.
  • 2 Citylade is the business itself. Primary source.
  • 3 Jetgrunn, it seems, was a sub-contractor for Veidekke. Primary source.
  • 4 Trondheim.com, municipal tourism website for Trondheim, simply provides a listing along with details for nine other shopping centres. In the same level of hierarchy (index/subpage) you can find listings for small cafes. Existence is proven, but not notability.
  • 567The 'Retail Space Europe Yearbook' is an industry publication, and while City Lade's listing does show it has some significance within that industry, i fail to see how this establishes broad-enough notability to warrant inclusion on en-wiki.
  • 8 visitnorway.com. I can't locate any coverage of the subject on this website.
Just to spell it out; City Lade isn't a notable subject. Zindor (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right ^ - as I said I did not complete the work of adding RS. Today I have added WP:RS, and there is much, much more available WP:NEXIST, (I used google translate in links) FYI: One can search the owner, the architect, the builder, the city and come up with much more RS. However I think we have a good article about the largest mall in Trondeheim, Norway... (a city which has 6 other malls). I revised the article to reflect the RS which has the mall at nearly 1 million square feet of retail space and 100 stores. I have to go look at the other mall that was prodded now. WP:NOTCLEANUP Lightburst (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've managed to spam the other article with routine coverage, industry publications and primary sources. Where's the coverage that is truly independent, significant, and lets us know that the subject is notable to our readers?
Honestly i really think you should read the policy pages you are quoting, instead of pile-driving fluffery into articles in the hope people believe the hype. You throw the abbreviation 'RS' around like it's a freemason handshake.
We're an encyclopedia, not a directory for local businesses. I'm going to leave this discussion because i'm frankly tired of your edits and i'm towing the line between AGF and ADHOM. Good luck Zindor (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added news sources. I am sorry that you are upset - I originally only added primary sources from company websites simply to show management, ownership and architects, size, etc. I returned today and provided news and secondary sources. I often improve articles which are prods or AfDs - it is not personal. I am only one !vote and I rarely turn up just to say delete or keep. When I deprodded it was because I did a WP:BEFORE - I do not randomly deprod articles - sometimes I do a redirect or I actually AfD them. Anyway...I am sure more editors will be along soon - I have spend several hours of my time last night, and again this morning. So I will leave it to others and I apologize for the walls of text. Lightburst (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly add these sources to the article or link in this discussion. No one has actually presented RS to meet GNG yet. Just paper tiger statements. Zindor (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Six days later, we're still waiting for those sources you state exist. Ravenswing 16:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources added recently do not rise to the level of GNG and despite the admirable attempt at WP:HEYMANN it still does not meet notability standards. The sources added were not, in fact, news sources but rather real-estate and industry sources and therefore not independent or reliable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep largest mall in Trondheim as well as Trøndelag County -> a regional landmark. lots of Norwegian sources exist.--RZuo (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo:, please see WP:ITEXIST, WP:LOCALFAME, and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Arbitrary "largest" qualities are not indicators of notability, actual coverage is. And stating that "lots of sources' are available without providing any does not help determine if there is such coverage or if that coverage is in independent, reliable sources. If you know of these sources, please provide some links. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of locating this wealth of Norwegian sources that is mysteriously alluded to, i had a look at the equivalent article on Norsk-wiki. In the sparse reference section there is a link to an article by Adressa, a Trondheim-based regional newspaper. Prima facie the newspaper seems like an acceptable daily regional for helping establish towards notability. There is secondary analysis in the linked piece but also a considerable amount of primary-source material from an interview with the rental manager. Thoughts on this source would be appreciated. Zindor (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So is Zindor saying s/he did not try searching for sources before AfD? And still did not try using the buttons provided by {{Find sources AFD}}?--RZuo (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: I satisfied the requirements of WP:BEFORE through my own means. I don't have to use the template you specify, and given the result you've posted below i'm glad i have my own ability to find and analyse sources. The source i linked isn't a game changer, i just thought i'd diligently share what i came across. I would have appreciated it if you spoke to me directly about your concerns over my ability to follow deletion policy, instead of posing that question to the rest of the editors involved in this discussion; it doesn't reflect well on you and perhaps you should read WP:AGF. I have a lot of respect for the experienced editors who've weighed in on this nom, and i'm sure if they have concerns they'll let me know. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone could get these links when s/he uses the {{Find sources AFD}}:
  1. https://www.adressa.no/pluss/nyheter/2020/08/12/Lav-sol-f%C3%A5r-skylda-for-at-kunder-har-betalt-for-mye-i-p-hus-22465664.ece
  2. https://www.adressa.no/pluss/okonomi/2020/08/14/To-av-landets-st%C3%B8rste-dagligvarebutikker-er-i-Trondheim-22449306.ece
  3. https://www.adressa.no/pluss/nyheter/2020/08/10/Foresl%C3%A5r-%C3%A5-stenge-Haakon-VIIs-gate-for-gjennomkj%C3%B8ring-med-personbiler-22451718.ece
  4. https://www.adressa.no/pluss/okonomi/2020/07/16/T%C3%B8ffe-tider-for-kj%C3%B8pesentre-men-City-Lade-vokser-22294303.ece
  5. https://www.adressa.no/pluss/okonomi/2020/07/27/Flere-hjemme-gir-s%C3%B8ppelrekorder-22336229.ece
  6. https://www.adressa.no/pluss/okonomi/2020/04/26/En-av-to-av-fris%C3%B8rsalonger-som-gikk-konkurs-kan-likevel-holde-%C3%A5pent-21678826.ece
  7. https://www.adressa.no/pluss/okonomi/2020/05/13/Kjede-%C3%A5pner-to-nye-butikker-i-Trondheim-21810267.ece
  8. https://www.adressa.no/pluss/nyheter/2020/04/08/Handelen-er-st%C3%B8rre-enn-p%C3%A5-samme-dag-i-fjor-21560772.ece
  9. https://www.adressa.no/pluss/okonomi/2019/01/21/City-Lade-har-aldri-omsatt-for-mer-enn-i-2018-18274739.ece
  10. https://www.adressa.no/nyheter/trondelag/2020/01/21/Fotgjenger-p%C3%A5kj%C3%B8rt-p%C3%A5-Lade-20887266.ece
  11. https://www.adressa.no/pluss/nyheter/2019/03/21/Spaserte-ut-av-butikk-p%C3%A5-City-Lade-i-splitter-nye-joggesko-uten-%C3%A5-betale-18703188.ece
  12. https://www.adressa.no/pluss/okonomi/2020/01/31/Merethe-slutter-med-butikkdrift-p%C3%A5-City-Syd-etter-ti-%C3%A5r-20964311.ece
  13. https://www.adressa.no/pluss/nyheter/2020/03/14/Kj%C3%B8pesentrene-i-Trondheim-reduserer-%C3%A5pningstidene-21346795.ece
  14. https://www.adressa.no/pluss/okonomi/2020/03/24/Butikkjede-konkurs-tre-butikker-legger-ned-i-Trondheim-21429343.ece
Now it's their turns for those who insist on no sources or no notability to prove why these dont count. And when they're done, they can go on to analyse the 2nd page of Google News results. And then the 3rd, 4th, 5th...
P.S. for those that like citing essays instead of reasoning and finding sources, here are two for them: WP:NEXIST Wikipedia:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy.--RZuo (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have one for you, RZuo - it's WP:BULLSHIT. Obviously you didn't look at the "sources" you threw up. I just did. The first two are single sentences. The third is a single sentence that doesn't mention the subject at all. The fourth has a one-line quote from the mall manager. The fifth is a single sentence that doesn't mention the subject at all. The sixth is two sentences long. The seventh is a single sentence that doesn't mention the subject at all. And so on. It is frankly insulting, and verging on bad faith, to throw up a heap of Google hits you didn't bother to verify and then to jeer about it. I agree that the GNG has not been met, and this mall meets no other notability standard. Ravenswing 16:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Ravenswing as to the sorry state of the sources provided above. Not to mention, they all seem to be from the same source anyway and therefore would only count as one for notability, but they are clearly WP:BULLSHIT anyway. So the article fails the GNG and should be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:19, 18 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 merge to Miyata#Models. czar 07:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miyata 310

[edit]
Miyata 310 (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)

Trivial coverage only -- just some catalog pages poorly scanned on some self-published bogs. Not a notable product, doesn't indicate the start of a trend or a novel design or anything of the sort. Simply doesn't meet notability. Not a catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:04, 8 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 BTCC (company). T. Canens (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby C. Lee

[edit]
Bobby C. Lee (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)

notability per WP:GNG not established for BTCC (company) founder covered only in connection with his company, not notable in isolation, reputable sources warrant no more than a sentence or two of information. Ysangkok (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subjective assessments of notability should not hold sway when arguing for deletion. Requirements for notability are 1) significant coverage of the subject, which all cited articles focus on, 2) reliability, which Forbes, other financial media, etc., are known for, in spite of subjective assessments by some people, 3) citation from secondary sources, which all the citations are, 4) independence from the subject, which the entry is, and 5) presumption of notability, which the subject is.
Other mainstream media articles that address the subject but are not cited are available a Google search away. A few:
New York Times - https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/bitcoin-collides-with-government-concerns/
BBC - https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-25428866 User:Wordpuissance (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wordpuissance: it is misleading to call a blog on NYTimes.com "The New York Times", since they don't have the same journalistic standards as other real printed articles. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ysangkok: Dealbook is not a blog, it's the New York Times' financial page. Not to mention that that article you're referring to appeared in print. If you scroll to the very end, it says clearly, "A version of this article appears in print on 12/19/2013, on page B3 of the New York edition with the headline: Bitcoin, Nationless Currency, Still Feels Governments’ Pinch." --Wordpuissance (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wordpuissance: You are completely right, I am sorry. But the article does not cover Bobby Lee at all, it just uses his image and has two paragraphs about BTC China (his company). But since the article doesn't actually talk about him, how is it a useful reference for this debate? --Ysangkok (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ysangkok: WP:GNG notability guidelines state that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The articles establish the subject as significant enough in his industry to have a profile done on him by Forbes and China Daily -- which has the widest print circulation of any English-language newspaper in China, and to be an authority quoted in articles by the BBC and the New York Times. Please refer strictly to WP:GNG notability guidelines when discussing the topic --User: Wordpuissance (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard: I dont think Bobby has much to do with Litecoin, it was his brother Charlie Lee who created Litecoin. I am not sure if Bobby has sufficient notability to warrant a wikipedia article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh, I got confused with Charlie! - David Gerard (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BTCC (company) - it's basically company-related, and the bio coverage here is way too skimpy for us to have a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard: There is substantial bio coverage in the book by the New York Times' cryptocurrency reporter, the article by Forbes and the article by China Daily. Considering the impact of this person on the cryptocurrency industry, as outlined by the New York Times reporter (Popper), and the fact that the entry strictly complies with WP:GNG and no one has pointed out any violations of WP:GNG, it should be kept --User:Wordpuissance (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:59, 8 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 20:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arusha School

[edit]
Arusha 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)

This school seems to not be notable enough to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Since the only source in the article is extremely trivial and seems to be from a defunct local news blog. I was not able to find multiple in-depth reliable sources about it in a WP:BEFORE either. Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:05, 8 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk Tonight

[edit]
Drunk Tonight (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 fail all three points of WP:NSONG. I found this brief piece, but I'm unsure if the site is reliable. Everything else appears to be user-generated with blogs. I'm taking this to AFD instead of boldly redirecting, as there may be non-English sources I'm not finding, and I'm also not very familiar with what Scandinavian music sources are reliable. Hog Farm Bacon 03:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:31, 1 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 20:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aline Khalaf

[edit]
Aline Khalaf (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 singer doesn't seem to be notable enough for an article about her. None of her albums or songs have Wikipedia articles. The only album by her that did have an article was recently deleted. Also, all of the sources in the article except for one are dead links and the one that works just says she's a singer. I wasn't able to find anything about her in a WP:BEFORE either. There just seems to be a bunch of articles about other people were her name is mentioned, but she is not talked about in detail. There definitely wasn't multiple in-depth reliable sources on her that I could find. So, she doesn't seem to pass WP:NMUSIC. Adamant1 (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:06, 8 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. GirthSummit (blether) 07:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Fianko

[edit]
Kevin Fianko (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 non-notable musician who fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 01:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 01:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 01:35, 8 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 all. Consensus is clear and the case for deletion of single-sourced lists of red-link compilations is well-argued. BD2412 T 05:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Classical Compilation Albums Chart number ones of the 2000s

[edit]
List of Classical Compilation Albums Chart number ones of the 2000s (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)

Plus:

List of Classical Compilation Albums Chart number ones of the 2010s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
List of Classical Compilation Albums Chart number ones of the 2020s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Doesn't seem to be a notable chart. Boleyn (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Added List of Classical Compilation Albums Chart number ones of the 2010s and List of Classical Compilation Albums Chart number ones of the 2020s to the nomination. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 8 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 Parks and Recreation characters. Tone 13:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marlene Griggs-Knope

[edit]
Marlene Griggs-Knope (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 character Marlene Griggs-Knope is a minor character, and isn't notable for its own article because of WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator cites WP:GNG without explaining why he believes this article doesn't pass that guideline. The benchmark for GNG is that the subject of an article has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, and this article checks all those boxes. It is well-sourced by reliable secondary sources, with coverage that goes beyond plot summary into a Development section as well. I imagine this article could be expanded further, but that's not a reason for deletion. The nominator doesn't seem to be making a policy-based argument for deletions but rather stating his own opinion that she's a "minor character" who he, in his subjective opinion, feels isn't notable. — Hunter Kahn 13:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The information presented in the article can be summarized and entered at List_of_Parks_and_Recreation_characters#Marlene_Griggs-Knope. There's no use for an article on a minor character according to WP:NCHAR and WP:BASIC. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They will only be looked up by specific fans of the show" — That makes absolutely no sense and is not a valid argument for deletion. Again, you are stating your own opinion that this is a "minor character". The article is not written as fancruft. AldezD (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The character in question appears in 10 episodes out of a possible 126, making her a minor character. The main cast of the show all have articles because they appear in most of the episodes. Why should a minor character have an article if they barely appear on the show? With your reasoning, characters like Mona-Lisa and Tammy II should also have articles, but they don't, because they're minor characters. WP:FAN applies to this article, which violates basic GNG rules. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again though, you are applying your own subjective opinion about why she is a minor character, which has nothing to do with policy. There is no Wikipedia policy that says a character must appear in X out of Y episodes to warrant an article. There are instead the standards of WP:GNG, which this article meets due to the presence of reliable secondary sources. And you keep citing WP:FAN, but what essay (not a policy) states is that an article should not be fancruft or written solely from an in-universe perspective and should demonstrate out of universe notability. This article does not run afoul of that essay. — Hunter Kahn 13:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Parks and Recreation characters. This would be a great fandom article. However, none of the sources come close to establishing notability and some struggle even to do more than verify that this character exists. The most we get for this character is a pargarph of coverage. That simply isn't sufficient for notability.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"TV Recap: Parks And Recreation - Canvassing" Yes ? No Does not mention Griggs-Knope by name; two short sentences of coverage ✘ No
"Parks & Recreation: The Banquet" Yes ? No Does not mention Griggs-Knope by name; three sentences of contrast to Leslie ✘ No
"Parks and Recreation: Season 1: Episode 2: "Canvassing"" Yes Yes No Does not mention Griggs-Knope by name; one sentence mention ✘ No
"'Parks and Recreation' Finale: This One's for the Fans" Yes Yes ~ We get two nearly sustained paragraphs about here at least ~ Partial
"Monday TV: Parks and Recreation" Yes No Describes Griggs-Knope as corporate which is at best misleading as Griggs-Knope works in the public sector No Does not mention Griggs-Knope by name; one sentence mention ✘ No
"Parks and Recreation: "The Banquet" review" Yes Yes No One sentence mention as part of a joke ✘ No
"The Parks and Recreation recap: The Banquet" Yes ? No Three sentences of incidental mentions ✘ No
"The Weird, Frictionless Politics Of 'Parks And Recreation'" Yes No No Does not mention Griggs-Knope by name; one short sentence of coverage ✘ No
"Parks and Recreation, "Galentine's Day": John Larroquette woos Leslie's mom" Yes Yes No In a Griggs-Knope heavy episode by a major critic she is only mentioned in relationship to a guest star ✘ No
""Parks and Recreation" recap: Breaking up is hard to do" Yes Yes ~ One paragraph of coverage from same episode as source 9 ~ Partial
"Parks and Recreation Recap: Love and Loss at the Pawnee Seniors Dance" Yes Yes No Does not mention Griggs-Knope by name; two sentences which mention her and like source 9 only do so in relation to other characters ✘ No
"Parks and Recreation: "The Bubble/Li'l Sebastian" Review" Yes Yes No One brief sentence ✘ No
"'Parks and Recreation' Season Finale Recap: The Bubble/Lil' Sebastian" Yes ? No Does not refer to Griggs-Knope by name. Two sentences mentioning her ✘ No
Gordon, Seth No DVD commentary Yes ? ✘ No
Schur, Michael No DVD commentary Yes ? ✘ 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}}.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps the source analysis performed here can inform a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 00:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Character is perfectly appropriate for inclusion as is a fairly notable character from the show. Well sourced and written. What’s the harm in keeping it, really? Viva Lil Sebastian. Yipee8f93k (talk) 00:41, 13 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_8&oldid=973783780"