Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 August	27 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keshav Tyohar

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

I will preface this AFD by saying that I believe the article was created and maintained by an undisclosed paid editing ring comprising Label4me and Ekucha belrima, who were likely the same person, and Ziofy, who may or may not have been the same person. Ziofy appeared a day after Ekucha was blocked to move the article back from Draft to Live space.

The subject is a 17-year-old Indian singer who was the first runner up on one of the seasons on a televised singing competition, Sa Re Ga Ma Pa L'il Champs. So far, I'm not convinced they would be notable per the WP:GNG.

There are currently 13 references in the article, most of them mashed together in one strand, as we see so often in UPE articles. Of these references:

These references support that the subject was either going to be on the TV show, or that he was a runner-up.India.com, Bhaskar.com, Jagran.com, Rediff, Financial Express is focussed on the winner, with a mention of Tyohar.

Of the rest:

This India Today source is essentially an interview.
This India Today source appears to be a short promo piece where the subject and another person talks briefly about the environment.
Prokabaddi.com, an outlet for news about the sport kabbadi tells us that the subject sang the Indian national anthem before a game.
Bhaskar.com seems to be talking about a local celebration being held in Patna to observe the subject's accomplishments on the show. And I guess also to praise his mother for raising him? It's hard to get nuance, because I'm looking at the Google translate version instead of the Hindi original, but it doesn't look like an in depth article about the subject, and there is no byline. This seems less about the subject than about the small-town-boy-makes-big. I also could be totally misinterpreting this, because I found another translated article that suggests the subject's last name means festival.
This Telegraph India article seems to be a bit more focussed on Tyohar, but it includes interview quotes that tell us more about the subject than whoemver wrote the article. Meaning, it feels like an interview that was narrated a bit. I don't know if this counts as independent coverage, so other eyes are welcome. It doesn't make me excited that the article is written by "Our Correspondent". That feels press-release-y to me.
Jagran.com seems to be puffing up Tyohar. No byline. Has the shape of a press release. This potentially could be construed in-depth if it's not a press release.
Bhaskar.com seems interested in one of the subject's upcoming songs. I don't know if this qualifies as in depth about the subject, as his song is the focus.
This Jagran piece is basically just a photo with embellished caption.

IMO, WP:TOOSOON, even if the article hadn't been polluted by UPEs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. These sources don't establish notability. Balle010 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO mess fails WP:GNG. KidAd talk 04:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of them seem to be simultaneously independent, reliable and significant. Bhaskar may qualify as one, but would still fail WP:THREE. --Ab207 (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A discussion on whether or not to merge or redirect can happen after this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marquita Bradshaw

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

She's not notable per WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Unelected candidates for office are not inherently notable. There is nothing else in her biography that confers notability. All sourcing is about the candidacy. Also note that the wire source "Bradshaw Overcomes Odds to Win Tenn. Senate Nomination" is present twice from NYT and once from ABC. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee. KidAd talk 22:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that winning a primary doesn't meet WP:NPOL, but her upset victory over a man well-supported by DSCC is significant in a way most primaries aren't. Being the first Black woman nominated for statewide office in Tennessee is a major milestone and inherently notable. These are major achievements, meeting WP:ANYBIO. The article needs improvement, and I will work on it. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HouseOfChange, and also Djflem and Nightenbelle, since you said "keep per HouseofChange", and Scope creep since you gave no reason at all: how exactly does winning an upset in a Democratic Party primary election that receives very little news coverage, because it's a heavily Republican seat, meet WP:ANYBIO? That requires meeting either The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, which is not the case, The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, which is also not the case because winning a primary election is hardly a "widely recognized contribution" to anything, and The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication is also not the case. So, how does this meet ANYBIO? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well... since you asked "Being the first Black woman nominated for statewide office in Tennessee is a major milestone and inherently notable." This is what does it for me... and like I said- the Women in Red project in which the goal is to help eliminate the imbalance of number of biographical articles on women on WP. There are also multiple RS that support her achievement as the first black women nominated (let alone to win!!) for statewide office in TN.Nightenbelle (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BASIC and being a notable first. Djflem (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: per ANYBIO, a "well-known and significant honor" x 2. First, to break through the barrier of color and gender to become the first Black woman chosen to be a major-party Senate candidate,[1][2][3] and second, the "astonishing"[4] "shocker"[5] win covered widely by national media -- very unusual degree of coverage by non-local media, 3 stories from AP alone. And they cover the win because it was so unusual as to be "significant:" the first primary loss in a decade for any DSCC-backed candidate.[6] HouseOfChange (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee. She will most likely fade into obscurity after the election. Nojus R (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect looks like a good solution to me. Balle010 (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HouseOfChange or Selective Merge 2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee.Djflem (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep scope_creep^Talk 10:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per House of change and also women in red project. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article meets WP:BASIC. I think being written about by the New York Times, the Associated Press, Roll Call and the Tennessean indicates being the first Black woman nominated for statewide office in Tennessee meets WP:ANYBIO. // Timothy :: talk 11:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above answers, notable primary win that defied expectations, we've got precedent for this in the past - see Alvin Greene for example. Kingofthedead (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keepconsidering above answes, but it's also worth noting that she winning the primary also marks the first time an African American woman has won a statewide primary of any major party in Tennessee which is, on and by itself, a notable achievemnt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.170.72 (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Bradshaw does not have notability outside of this one election, and all of the coverage in reliable sources is related to this one election. It's a clear-cut WP:BLP1E situation. Contrast that with someone like Cori Bush, who similarly won in an upset, but who had a prior career in activism and electoral politics that received coverage. -LtNOWIS (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For what it's worth, Bradshaw's opponent, Bill Hagerty, has never held elective office either, and he still has a lengthy page full of largely trivial information. Besides, I, a random user, came to Wikipedia specifically looking for information on Marquita Bradshaw and found her page helpful. I strongly agree that her primary win as a Black woman makes her notable in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPbio (talk • contribs) 10:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 04:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arpita Mukherjee

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Tried to remove some promo material (spotify, itunes, soundcloud, shazam) before nominating here. Decided the sources don't establish notability. Sources other than those mentioned in my source assess table aren't worth discussing, imv. - hako9 (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/television/sa-re-ga-ma-pa-winner-arpita-mukherjee-wants-to-balance-bollywood-and-indie-music-4762398/	~ Published through IANS with same date. See WP:SYNDICATED		Just 1 para left, if you exclude direct quotations	✘ No
https://www.hindustantimes.com/music/it-s-an-opportunity-i-ll-always-cherish-sa-re-ga-ma-pa-winner-arpita-on-her-mubarakan-song/story-YVg5h09FWTJfUE6n3GnJLL.html	~ Published through IANS with same date. See WP:SYNDICATED		Just 1 para left, if you exclude direct quotations	✘ No
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/music/170516/melody-matters-arpita-share-her-favourite-playlist.html	It's an interview.		A very short interview	✘ No
https://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Cinema/2016-09-09/Sandeep-Batra-and-Arpita-Mukherjee-perform-live-at-the-music-Launch-of-Ek-Tha-Hero/252993		?	Just a trivial mention	✘ 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}}.

- hako9 (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes two criteria of WP:NMUSIC criteria 9 with winning a notable television singing competition series and criteria 10 has had her songs featured on numerous nationally broadcast television series. As for the table, where does it say that the IAN news agency is not independent; from WP:SYNDICATED "Syndicated news pieces may be independent of the subject matter". Also if a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking uses that source and adds to it why should it not be reliable? imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding The Hans India, where is it determined as unreliable as there is nothing about it in the Reliable sources noticeboard archives and perennial sources list, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Winning a notable/non-notable (Sa Re Ga Ma Pa: Golden Voice Hunt is actually not at all notable) singing competition doesn't mean it passes NMUSIC sir. You need to win major music competition (emphasis "major"). If you have doubts about the word major you need to read the line above the guideline. The word major is used before an award such as Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis. That implies a major competition can never be a competition like Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Voice Hunt. Also, Sa Re Ga Ma Pa is notable as a tv reality show. Not as a music competition or an award. Most importantly, GNG trumps any SNG. NMUSIC says conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. I never said IANS cannot be independent. You haven't even read the two articles. Please see WP:SYNDICATED. Both of them need to be counted as one source only. You also did not note that they fail GNG because aren't sigcov. Those articles just have 1 para when you exclude direct quotations. The Hans is unreliable according to me. You can disagree, that's fine. I think you need to reassess your flawed !vote. - hako9 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Your attitude is disappointing. The Hans India needs to be determined by more than one editor, a paragraph can be significant coverage if it contains usable facts, and she has contributed a theme song to a notable television series as well as songs to other notable series so passes criteria 10 of WP:NMUSIC and winning a television reality singing competition is significant. According to Wikipedia Sa Re Ga Ma Pa is "the oldest running singing reality show in India" running since 1995, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sa Re Ga Ma Pa is a reality tv show. It has a dozen spinoffs like Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Ek Main Aur Ek Tu, Sa Re Ga Ma Pa L'il Champs. Winning these reality tv shows is like winning a plush toy in a circus game. It is not a "major award or a major competition" as per NMUSIC. In any case if that's her claim to fame, it qualifies for WP:BLP1E. I'll mention again, GNG trumps any SNG. I did my WP:BEFORE prior to nominating. Bottomline is there aren't sources to establish significant coverage. - hako9 (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tenuous arguments. There is no claim to fame here. Almost completely non-notable. The competition aren't that special now. There is so many of them. Fails WP:SIGCOV as well. Where is the social media?? There is nothing there. scope_creep^Talk 10:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SINGER. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Sa Re Ga Ma Pa" cannot be called a "major music competition" (distinguish from being a notable TV show). Though I would disagree with Hako9's classification of Hans India as unrelaible. For the purposes of WP:SINGER ("online versions of print media"), it would qualify as reliable source. However, given the trivial mention, its overall contribution to GNG is nil. Even if we consider SYNICATED sources as one GNG source, the article would not cut notability guidelines. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Freedom Press Books

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

I am baffled by the existence of this list, which I think fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:LISTN. It does not aid in navigation, because a fair number of the books do not have WP entries. ~~It is unsourced.~~ And all relevant information about the publisher can be found and included at Freedom Press. Wikipedia is not a mirror of Worldcat—and this is actually substantially less useful than a library catalog entry. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It is unsourced." I find that claim baffling, when made regarding a list of books. The rest of the nomination seems fairly on point so I have no comment on other issues. postdlf (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right; struck that bit. Though I suppose one might have sourcing questions with books from the pre-ISBN era, where connecting a book to its publisher is less straightforward. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't belong on WP.Balle010 (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty clear WP:NOTCATALOG. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 08:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added brackets for a few names and titles to check for notability. Some of the books are notable. It seems like a lot of research went into this article so wanted to add a note of hesitation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Nom. Since this is covered by WorldCat, there's no reason to have it in Wikipedia. Also WP:WWIN. Normal Op (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnos Entertainment

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

Unsourced since 2006. It is occasionally mentioned in articles on titles that it worked on, often with a footnote that says: "Additional work by Hypnos Entertainment". That work is typically porting a title to another platform. Vexations (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 01:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Balle010 (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 15:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Company exists but the best I found was one sentence (not 100% sure due to bad snippet) in [7]: "Improvements abound. beginning with Hypnos Entertainment's spectacular new graphics engine. " As such, it fails WP:NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Corrado

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

Unclear how this passes notability criteria: the subject interned at the White House and has a few local mentions for covering his trip from Italy to the U.S. Reads like a CV. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Like a CV. Fails notability. Balle010 (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t believe the article meets WP:BIO, considering the subject is only noteworthy because of being mentioned on a few news channels. Lucas.Wy (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being an intern in the campaign organization of a candidate for US president in not a sign of notability, nor are any of the other things listed about him. Beinging briefly quoted in a newspaper on any issue is also not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls super short of WP:NPOL and fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Munzali Dantata

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

The article doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines and is not well-referenced. As it stands, it is also somewhat confusing. (What is an "acknowledged tourism enthusiast and activist"?) Noahfgodard (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reads like a resume. Non-notable subject with passing mentions in media. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Large unverified claims with no inline citations. The only possibly noteworthy thing is the position he held as Director General for the National Institute for Hospitality and Tourism of Nigeria (don't know if that's an official government position). But it's iffy anyways and can't establish notability on its own. - hako9 (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not establish notability. Balle010 (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC) Delete claims are not at all verifiable, also not a notable person to be on Wikipedia.Iitianeditor (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 04:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Wesley

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

Despite a relatively long career behind the scenes, little reliable and significant information can be found about this singer. Note that the items listed in the article's Discography section, despite being in italics, are actually singles, and over the years she only released four singles of her own and guested on two singles by other people. Otherwise she appears to be mostly a session singer. The article's attempted Google Books citation points to a book page in which she was merely listed as being present at someone else's session. Otherwise she can only be found at typical retail, streaming, and lyrics sites for the few songs in her own name, with no pro reviews or other analysis to qualify for notability as a musician. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No effective coverage. Lots of passing mentions on Gbooks. Fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer, does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 04:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legae Academy

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

The article only has references to primary sources and a dead link. Plus, when I did a WP:BEFORE about it I was unable to find the multiple in-depth reliable secondary sources the subject would need to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. As an alternative to deletion the article could be merged or redirected to the article for the city where it's located, Gaborone. That seems to be the preferred thing to do with articles about non-notable schools. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a reference to a thesis which discussed the school. There are some references in school directories, though I'm not sure how reliable these are and whether inclusion is paid. But my main argument for keeping is that this is a secondary school, it exists, and therefore this from WP:WPSCH/AG applies: "In practice articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept, as they are almost always found to be notable, unless their existence cannot be verified in order to stop hoaxes". (I do realise this is a bit of a circular argument.) The article does need work to remove some unsourced trivia (I've taken the bit about the library competitions out). Tacyarg (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thesis' don't really count for establishing notability. Also, like I said in my nomination the current precedent for high/secondary schools that can be proven to exist but still fail WP:GNG or WP:NORG, which so far this one seems to, is to merge or redirect it either the school districts article or the one for the town where it's located. Since a thesis that mentions it exists definitely isn't enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. So, sans anything that does pass either I still think a merge/redirect is the best option. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

20:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NSCHOOL / WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV. Sources in article are either unidentifiable dead links, primary or statistics. WP:WPSCH/AG is an essay and is contradicted by February 2017 RFC. // Timothy :: talk 12:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sui gas field

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

Stumbled on this article as needing clean-up. Discovered that nearly the entire article had been copy pasted from an external site. Relevance of said text was also unclear. Upon further review I'm not sure this article meets notability or significance. It might be the largest natural gas reserve in Pakistan, but that's about it. Nothing significant or notable about it in any other domain. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What page is it copied from? The Earwig cooyvio tool isn’t finding it. Mccapra (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-cleanup nearly the entirety of the Production section was copied from here. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article is in bad shape, the subject itself notable enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Beagel (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the very first source found by clicking in the word "books" above, plus many others. And I don't understand what "other domain" the nominator is looking for. This is a gas field, not a cricketer or a film or anything else. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This gas field is recognized by petroleum geologists as a giant gas field having over 5 trillion cubic feet of proven gas reserves in Eocene carbonates. There are a number of papers about it that can be found by digging in the geologic literature, e.g. AAPG Bulletin. Paul H. (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment The current estimated reserves is not over 5 trillion cubic feet (a 1959 estimate). It is actually 10 to 11 trillion cubic feet. This makes it a monster of a supergiant gas field and quite economically significant and noteworthy beyond any doubt. Paul H. (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. On the surface, there is no agreement about whether the subject meets WP:SOLDIER or not. But, the deeper problem is that (as is almost always the case), nobody can agree what "presume" means. And, no wonder, that. I just went and read WP:PRESUME hoping it would give me clarity about how to sort this out. I have no clue what WP:PRESUME is trying to say. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out to me that, "there is no agreement about whether the subject meets WP:SOLDIER" is overstating things. There was one statement, Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER or really even WP:1E, but that was a minority opinion. The gist, however, is that whether it meets SOLDIER or not, there's no agreement here if that's enough, i.e. the whole question about what "presume" means, and how SNGs interact with GNG. That's the important thing that led to this being closed No Consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilal Ahmed Rather

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, is WP:1E // Timothy :: talk 04:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while in India Air commodore rank satisfies #2 of WP:SOLDIER, that is just a presumption of notability and I don't that see WP:GNG is satisfied as the only notability seems to be the trivial WP:1E of being the first Indian Air Force pilot to fly a Rafale which in itself is not notable. We don't have pages for first X nationality to fly Y aircraft and shouldn't start doing so. Mztourist (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also the supposed point of notability has been fact-checked by India Today and found wanting [8]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first Indian pilot to fly a particular type of plane is not even remotely close to a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Air commodores are notable per WP:SOLDIER #1 #2. That's why he's notable, not for flying a particular type of plane. This has been completely unaddressed by the nom and two of the above posters. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply This is an essay. It is a recommendation based on opinions intended to help editors evaluate notability in a subject area. This recommendation in no way means notabiity is automatically established and must be assumed. If the individual is actually notable it should be easy to produce multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject to show they meet WP:GNG and are not a WP:1E. // Timothy :: talk 16:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOLDIER is a presumption of notability, if the person doesn't actually have "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" then they still fail WP:GNG despite their rank, medal etc. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is an essay that is almost always followed in AfD discussions. There is heavy precedent for keeping, as I cannot recall an officer of this rank being deleted at AfD. The article is now well sourced. This is very clearly not a WP:1E issue given his career, so any arguments that it is are disingenuous. No, he isn't notable for being the first to fly a particular type of plane; he certainly is for reaching the rank of air commodore. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is also notable for being India's air attaché in Paris for the last four years and actually organising the supply of the Rafale to India. There is plenty of sourcing for this. Strange how all this has been ignored in these allegations that this is a WP:1E. I would say that WP:BEFORE has certainly not been adhered to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, to summarise, an air officer who meets the criteria of WP:SOLDIER #2, who has held a notable appointment, who has been responsible for a major equipment overhaul in a major service of a major country and whose career is well-covered in the media and well-sourced in his article. But that still doesn't, apparently, meet WP:GNG! Yes, it does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the media sourcing is low quality, reads like poorly written fancruft and so does not satisfy WP:RS. The Greater Kashmir and News18 stories seem to be the same, containing this ridiculous statement: "The career details of this officer of the Indian Air Force (IAF) read like the decoration scroll of the best flying officer anywhere in the world." User:Peacemaker67 has already pointed out that claims that he flew the first Rafale from France to India, which is repeated in most of the news sources, is not correct and most of the stories appear to confuse him being the first Indian to fly a Rafale with him flying the Rafale from France to India. Given these deficiencies I don't see that we can trust anything in these stories other than his basic biography and rank progression, so I dispute that it is well-sourced.Mztourist (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this context WP:RSCONTEXT, The Gazette of India does not meet WP:RS because it is not independent of the topic, it is a government publication. The other sources listed are WP:ROUTINE coverage of one event (the procurement of 5 aircraft), which does not meet WP:NEVENT or WP:SUSTAINED. It is not notable to be an "air attaché". Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER or really even WP:1E. WP:BEFORE has clearly been done very well.

re: the comment "so any arguments that it is are disingenuous" is an inappropriate aspersion that others here are acting in bad faith. It would be advisable for this comment to be struck. // Timothy :: talk 11:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly, given the facts that he is an air commodore and holds a senior post have been completely ignored in the nomination, which merely alleges it is WP:1E, which is clearly not true. Two of the comments then just went along with the nomination, also without mentioning his rank or post. I'm not assuming bad faith; I'm assuming that WP:BEFORE was not carried out fully and that the nomination was based on the non-notable fact that he was the first person from a particular country to fly a particular type of aircraft. Since it has since been made clear that this is not the reason for his notability, I'm mystified as to why WP:1E is still being touted as a reason for deletion. Incidentally, a government publication most certainly is a WP:RS for the career of a government employee. Not to establish notability maybe, but as a source for facts certainly. As to the the comment that Most of the media sourcing is low quality, reads like poorly written fancruft and so does not satisfy WP:RS, most of it is very similar to the article from the Times of India. If that isn't a reliable source for Indian affairs then I don't know what is. I think what you read as poorly written fancruft is just the way many Indian journalists write; it's a cultural difference. That doesn't make it unreliable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This, I think, proves that we pretty much have a consensus. And consensus matters at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: WP:OTHER stuff exists is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Those other articles had evidence of WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 21:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but consensus is. Consensus is how we do things on Wikipedia, and clear consensus here is to keep such articles. Have you read all of them then? You clearly haven't read even a fraction of them, because if you had, you'd find that many of them were kept solely because of their rank. Many were in fact not as well sourced as this article. Verifiable proof of their holding the rank was all that was required for them to be kept. As I said, consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then they were decided incorrectly because just holding a rank is only a presumption of notability, they must have "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you think we have AfDs? If everything was decided by simple application of set-in-stone rules then we wouldn't need them at all. GNG is a guideline. It isn't set in stone. And other subject-specific notability guidelines, including WP:SOLDIER (which is considered to be a valid guideline despite its status as an essay, which is why it is linked at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and why WP:AFDOUTCOMES says what it says about military personnel), are often considered to be more important. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To quote from WP:SOLDIER, re personnel of his rank: If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article. Certainly applies here. I would also note that, despite "only" being an essay, WP:SOLDIER is listed on Wikipedia:Notability (people) under the header note: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. It is therefore clear that, despite the comments above that he does not, Rather rather easily meets our criteria for inclusion. I would also reiterate that two of the "delete" !votes completely ignore the fact that he is an air commodore and only focus on the non-notable fact that he may have been the first IAF pilot to fly a particular aircraft. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Response once again you are ignoring that WP:SOLDIER states that holding a rank is only a presumption of notability, they must have "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" to meet WP:GNG and he doesn't by any measure satisfy that. Mztourist (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You obviously didn't fully read what I wrote above: If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am familiar with all of WP:SOLDIER and my earlier comment stands he lacks "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources". Mztourist (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - As am I and as do mine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Necrothesp, perhaps you can explain to everyone what "then they most likely" means in the above quote? I'm sure Mztourist and the closer would be interested as well.

I'd also be interested (as I'm sure would others and the closer) as to which independent, secondary sources you believe contain non-trivial details about his personal life, education and military career, beyond the WP:1E about being the first person from a particular country to fly an already tested and deployed aircraft, and the mention of his rank, which does not detail his military career, it just notes his rank). // Timothy :: talk 22:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see anyone disputing that the subject meets NSOLDIER. NSOLDIER continues to be a valid SNG for AFD purposes. I am open to revisiting notability guidelines or guides or rules or whatever, but not in AFDs themselves. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: In the above comments, three editors have disputed NSOLDIER. WP:NSOLDIER says "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify". They are presumed notable, but a presumption is not a gaurantee of notability. It goes on to state, "will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify" - almost always" is the key; in this case he does not have sufficient coverage to quality. WP:SIGCOV states that "significant coverage" must detail the subject directly and in depth and the sources much be WP:IS indepedent of the subject, so in this case government and military publications are not independent of the subject.

Unlike some guidelines that need more clarity, NSOLDIER doesn't need to be revisited because it makes it clear that this is a presumption, which is not a guarantee and that they will almost always meet, which clearly means some subjects will not.

What matters here is: does the subject have significant direct and indepth coverage WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent WP:IS reliable sources WP:RS. The nomination sets forth that the subject does not meet this and no one has provided evidence to the refute this. // Timothy :: talk 16:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All SNGs (except WP:NPOL AFAIK) are a fallback to presumption, because otherwise we would not need SNGs at all. By the same token, all SNGs should rightly say that subjects meeting SNGs may not always meet GNG and therefore one should be careful about creating a bunch of articles on some weak SNG claim alone. That's for creating. Once someone's decided to create one based on the presumption, one possible way to make a case for failure of GNG despite meeting some SNG, in my view, is to show that the person is unlikely to ever meet GNG by virtue of (1) not currently having enough coverage (reasonably conclusively showing that all the coverage that there is, online and offline, has been exhaustively collated and GNG isn't still met; not the case here as the subject is from an area which isn't exhaustively studied, nor covered well enough on the internet, and not really the best time for digging up library archives) && (2) being unable to do anything eliciting further coverage (eg. by being long dead; not the case here) or being unlikely to elicit further coverage. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Air commodore passes SOLDIER and he probably will have more coverage in the future. Non-English or off-line sources may also exist in addition to the recent coverage in English. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I strongly disagree with how expansive SOLDIER is (someone in the business world who supervises as few as 500 employees is what they call a "middle manager," and sure as hell not presumptively notable), it's the SNG on the ground. SNG being subordinate to the GNG, which the subject just does not pass. Suggestions that he "probably will have more coverage in the future" violates WP:CRYSTAL, and it just doesn't cut it to suggest that there must be non-English sources out there, when we're dealing with an officer in the military of the country with the world's largest English-language media. Beyond that, black-letter policy requires not that sources may exist, when challenged, but that editors wishing to keep an article prove that they do. That burden of proof has not been met. Ravenswing 10:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Traditionally a brigadier commands a brigade (the clue being in the title), which consists of 2,000 or more personnel, not 500. That (or its equivalents) is the lowest rank covered by WP:SOLDIER. They are certainly not middle managers (the equivalent there would probably be captains and majors, who are nowhere near senior enough to be covered by the guideline). So I fail to see how your argument against WP:SOLDIER is accurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets our guidelines for WP:SOLDIER#2 the subject is notable. Wm335td (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wm335td, WP:NSOLDIER is not a guideline, it is an essay; it is an opinion. What WP:SIGCOV does this have to show notability? // Timothy :: talk 19:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a widely-accepted standard so entrenched that it is listed at Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A a s i m 20:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish people would look up the word "presumption" in a dictionary and start presuming, rather than doing the opposite. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uncontested pass of WP:NSOLDIER #2. There is no indication that NSOLDIER isn't an accurate indicator of GNG. There is strong precedents for keeping such articles (WP:Some stuff exists for a reason) per User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for flag, general and air officers. – SD0001 (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer: Since this will be a controversial close regardless of how it ends up, could you let us know how you weighted the sources for notability and independence and how you believe guidelines vs essays impacted the decision. Thank you. // Timothy :: talk 05:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:SOLDIER#2.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see WP:GNG mentioned. WP:GNG is a presumption of notability - "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." (my emphasis). There are other routes to a presumption of notability, WP:SOLDIER is relevant here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. There's too much made of other routes to notability being "only presumptions" and so ignored, but the WP:GNG being "real" notability that is somehow one of the founding principles of Wikipedia, rather than just another guideline that was developed some years after Wikipedia started. I must repeat my plea for people to start presuming notability rather than presuming non-notability when anything using the word "presumption" is cited. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BIS conference

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

I'm unsure if there are any specific notability guidelines for academic conferences, but I am unable to find any independent coverage of this one which would indicate that WP:GNG is met. The article creator appears to have a major conflict of interest: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Older_/_broader_COI_issues SmartSE (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 10:48, 9 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) 13:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm unable to make a strong case for or against deleting this but, despite suspected COI, there don't appear to be any serious WP:NPOV issues in this short article. ~Kvng (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: I wasn't suggesting that was a reason for deletion, more a reason for it to be created in the first place, rather than because it is a particularly well known conference. SmartSE (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse, we don't delete articles on notable topics just because they were created by COI editors. There are likely a lot of better-known conferences without a Wikipedia article but that does not justify deleting this one. ~Kvng (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: Huh? I know and that's exactly what I said! The question is whether it meets GNG. SmartSE (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse, like you, I don't have much experience evaluating this beyond WP:EXISTS. So I haven't !voted. ~Kvng (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does anyone else have any comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Significant copyvio from the conference website (their self-description from 2015 was added here in 2018). The content that wasn't lifted runs into the "Wikipedia is not a directory or catalogue" problem: basically all that's left is the list of annual meetings, and that's not an encyclopedia article. I have not turned up any substantial third-party coverage of the conferences in amidst the publications of things that had been presented there. That's not an atypical situation for conferences, book series, niche publishers, etc., but those subjects don't get a special exemption — it just means they face an uphill path to wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if this article must be deleted or not! A scientific conference from 1997 by notable publisher (Springer) is interesting, but to have a Wikipedia article, the article topic must pass the WP:GNG. Charmk (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WWVS-LP

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

This station can't possibly have existed.

The lone reference says, correctly, that the low-power television service in the US started in 1982, when this station allegedly broadcast from 1967 to 1970. They weren't assigning four-letter call signs to LPTVs until 1994.
Further, the FCC does not allow normal broadcast stations to take call letters starting with "WWV" as those designations are reserved for the government.
There are no references to a WWVS of this type in any Connecticut newspapers or in trade publications.

Raymie (t • c) 19:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 19:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 19:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems like more of an early local CATV channel than a physical broadcast television station. I could see it existing (and I'm sure the sources are very thin in more of a 'local curiosity' type of way), but only in that sense. Nate • (chatter) 22:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: When an article claims a station existed before its supposed form of broadcast service was established by the FCC (and not only did LPTV begin in 1982, but "-LP" suffixes weren't issued to any station prior to 1994 — prior to then, LPTVs used the same call sign format as stations in the translator service), that generally doesn't bode well for verifiability. I'd concur that, if it existed at all, this was a CATV channel (a station that seemingly only operated to show high school sports doesn't seem to be a realistic way to run an over-the-air station to me), though no channel number is mentioned in the article. (I'll note that not all "WWV*" call signs are forbidden to FCC-licensed broadcast stations; there are a number of them that are used on such stations, such as WWVA and WWVT. At least as of 2009, though, reserved for "standard frequency" stations were "WWV, WWVB through WWVI, WWVL, WWVS." Not sure what the limitations regarding the "WWV*" call sign block were in place during the late 1960s, but WWVS definitely seems to be off-limits to today's broadcasters, so "WWVS-LP" probably wouldn't be approved. Though this didn't stop WVBX from holding the call sign WWVB-FM for a year and a half in 2008–09…) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:BROADCAST or WP:GNG. This seems like a very serious hobbyist found a great way to have fun and support the local high school for a few years. // Timothy :: talk 12:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent Systems

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

The company's digital marketing team members are directly involved in editing this page. The user Pritamgandhi happens to be on the company payroll who did unreferenced edits to showcase recent developments such as the resignation of their CEO. (Redacted). This page is nothing but a promotional activity for this entity (WP:PROMO). Please do note, this wiki page is active since 2004, without having any encyclopedic value. The company may be listed on the stock market but that doesn't prove notability (WP:GNG, WP:NCORP). Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. -Hatchens (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. It was difficult finding sources because the term "Persistent Systems" is used by academic writers in completely different contexts. This caused lots of results in Google Scholar and JSTOR, but none that met WP:SIRS. When I did a Google News search, I only found press releases (which are not independent), and what WP:CORPDEPTH deems "trivial coverage" like the resignation of a CEO for unspecified reasons and stock price information. There might be WP:RS concerning their work with the US Army, but I was not able to find independent or significant coverage. Z1720 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the sources listed above, I have decided to stay with my !delete vote. WP:CORPDEPTH says "Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs." Regarding the CEO resignation, I agree with a commentator that it "was kinda a big deal" but none of the sources say why it was significant. Until that happens, I will consider it "the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel," which is listed as trivial coverage in WP:CORPDEPTH.

Regarding routine business coverage, I considered if the sources were describing "expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business" (deemed trivial in WP:CORPDEPTH) or "ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization," (deemed significant in WP:CORPDEPTH.) In my opinion, these sources are trivial because they do not describe what is significant about the CEO leaving. I would change my vote if sources state a significant reason or impact on leaving the company.

Regarding the interviews, I don't see how these talk about Persistent Systems. The first one is under a paywall, but the second interview is more about IBM's Watson and the third doesn't give any specifics or facts about how the company was created or expanded. Regarding the 10K employees and long history, these facts do not establish notability on their own. Instead, these facts are the basis for reliable sources to cover this topic, thus fulfiling our notability requirement. Without this middle step, we cannot establish notability. I will regretfully remain with a delete vote until a reliable source gives information that fulfils significant coverage defined by WP:CORPDEPTH. Z1720 (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (Without prejudice to blocking any COI editor and strong emphasis to keep the advert tag on the article, as is). Keep because - Listed company with an M-cap of ₹7,547 crore (US$900 million) and approx 10k employees. Nominator is right that there is no inherent notability for such listed companies as per WP:LISTED. But the claim of nominator, this wiki page is active since 2004, without having any encyclopedic value disregards all the !votes made by editors of the previous afds and keep close by the closing admin. Coming to this afd, the CEO resignation was kinda a big deal covered by reliable sources in India - [9], [10], [11]. Anyways, I'd classify the sources cited/found as follows,

Routine business coverage, but they include some independent commentary and analysis- [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]

Interviews with Management with some independent comments/analysis , [19], [20], [21] - (Last one is cited as press release but in my opinion its not. It's kind of a longish interview with the founder with some independent commentary in the lead).

They also keep getting tonnes of trivial coverage like [22], [23], too many to list here.

In most of the sources the quotes by the management (not independent) are easily distinguishable from the rest of the independent content. Imo, on a combined basis, there is sigcov for a keep. - hako9 (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hako9, out of all the media mentions/citations which you stated - only two of the sources pass borderline reliability; BloombergQuint and The Hindu Business Line - as per WP:RSPSOURCES. Why borderline pass? because, both the sources are the sister publications of Bloomberg and The Hindu (which are the only Reliable Sources included in the list). And, if we delve a little bit more, all the news article links (which you have shared) lack neutrality factor because most of them are speaking about the company's success related to certain events or mergers/acquisitions. Due diligence is required. Hatchens (talk) 04:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchens, Economic Times, Money Control and Livemint are reliable too, even though they are not listed in WP:RSPSOURCES. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie, That's your assumption. If these sources are not discussed or included in the list (based on consensus), then we cannot simply assume your point of view. However, even if we go ahead with your assumption, these links may help in terms of WP:VERIFY but from another angle, they are actually violating WP:NPOV. Please do note, These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. Hatchens (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarize yourself with WP:RSPMISSING. Start a discussion on The Economic Times, Quint and Business Line at RSN if you want to find where they land. Due diligence is required. Yes. You need to diligently read the sources. - hako9 (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hako9, Thank you for the suggestion, and indeed the interpretation of sources can go both ways. As per WP:RSPMISSING - A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. But, if the entity is notable, then I believe it might have some references coming from this WP:RSPSOURCES list or from Google Scholar or JSTOR. But, this is not the case. Besides that, the whole article is like a WP:STUB which never had any expansion in the last 16 years because it has no encyclopedic value in the first place. Let's not digress from this AfD discussion and try to derive a consensus. Hatchens (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchens, lack of expansion does not imply failing of WP:GNG. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie, You can keep going on picking up my statements and make your assumptions. It's a free world. But, in the end, I will advocate for the actual acceptance, which should be, derived from general consensus supported by Wikipedia guidelines (holistically speaking). That's the primary objective of all AfDs. Hatchens (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop tagging me and stop wasting my time. - hako9 (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hako9, I guess we are discussing?, with civility. I'm sorry if I have caused any inconvenience. From, now onwards, will not tag. Regards. Hatchens (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a notable topic. But, leave targeted guidance for resolving COI, and other quality issues. No reason to not have them be resolved when the page is active. Recommend reaching out to appropriate project group if needed for SME assists. Ktin (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Hako9 and Ktin. Topic is clearly notable. The company has 10k employees. Issues can always be (and must be) resolved through some cleanup. There are a lot of sources available, as we can see in this discussion. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have checked the references. I used to write press releases so I can smell one a mile away and I have seen nothing but press releases and regurgitated PR material. The is WP:ADMASQ and needs to go. Fiddle Faddle 11:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Special Note - SerChevalerie has deregistered itself from Wikipedia without putting a redirect, For more details, click here and also check link. -Hatchens (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References are promotional, article appears to be editied by employees. Whiteguru (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as noted in WP:LISTED, "Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above.". With 10k employees and a long history (founded 1990), this is one of those cases. Which is prolly also why it's the third nom (WP:STICK). II | (t - c) 12:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 12:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: NCORP requires coverage that is intellectually independent of the subject, and at least one !voter has questioned whether the coverage found so far meets that standard; further discussion of this question would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 26 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 Angelo Falcón. The one "keep" doesn't address the sourcing problems. Sandstein 10:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute for Latino Policy

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

non-notable org. Very little in terms of coverage. Therapyisgood (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: page is a good example of the history of immigration of Latinos and vulnerable peoples in New York City. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angelo Falcón. I'm not seeing anywhere close to what's needed by WP:NORG. The one source in the article is Falcón's obituary (and, in fact, is also the only source in our article about him). The Institute doesn't appear to have any notability separate from it's founder; the NY Times obit describes it as, "a one-man operation run out of his Brooklyn apartment". -- RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Weak keep is still a keep Tone 04:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Sarll

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

This article is about a "larger than life" character sourced primarily from a book. Using an offline source is of course OK, provided that source is reliable. The problem is that the story contains multiple implausible claims, Being born a 3 foot long baby, catching 25 foot long alligators and 35 foot long pythons, and those are just the ones I knew would be improbable world records if true. It is possible that the book was properly researched and set out which stories the author was able to verify and which were tall tales revolving around or from the subject, if so a rewrite by someone with access to that book would be in order. But if the book recounts those tales uncritically then we can't treat it as a reliable source, and therefore we may not have sufficient reliable sourcing available for an article. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting to "weak Keep" as some of the less plausible claims have been retracted or attributed per closer perusal of the source. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think being featured on This Is Your Life is enough to establish notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a few paragraphs in a 1993 issue of Sight and Sound: "In Time of War", an article about wartime filming. I also found a short article from March 1961, "Adventurer Deluxe", in The Windsor Star. Not a lot, but it could be something to build on. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'd very much like to keep an article which features a photo of the subject "Hypnotising an Alligator"(!), but I'm not sure that WP:BIO is met. The Australian media of this era is a decent proxy of the British media, but searching the National Library of Australia's very wide ranging Trove newspaper archives finds only two stories for Thomas Sarll (syndicated across multiple papers) [24] and only an ad for "Tiger Sarll" [25]. If there are equivalent British resources they'd be well worth checking. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think if he was notable enough to feature on This Is Your Life and have a biography written about him then he's notable enough for us. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But if that "biography" repeats a bunch of improbable tall tales, should it be treated as a reliable source, or are we basically legitimising someone else's hoax? Ϣere SpielChequers 10:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep featured on This Is Your Life He gets some passing mentions in major media also, like the BBCWm335td (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and I don't believe that appearing on This Is Your Life is sufficient to pass WP:GNG, rather this is an example of early pop culture. Mztourist (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- But he was obviously not just a nobody if he was selected. It's hardly the same thing as being a contestant on a reality show, given only one person was selected for every weekly show and they were generally people who were well-known in the media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that is more significant than being a one-hit wonder (which you object to so much) how exactly? Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't object to one-hit wonders having articles at all. I object to one-hit wonders having articles but people who are genuinely notable not having them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See these two articles, one of which has a short biography, complete with reptile hypnosis: Bottomore, Stephen. "Introduction: The Cambrian Cinema." Film History, vol. 10, no. 1, 1998, p. 3 and eadem "In time of war." Sight and Sound, vol. 3, no. 9, Sep 01, 1993, pp. 30-33.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I find the "This is your life" argument unpersuasive as an IAR "keep" rationale, but relistin to allow discussion of the sources provided in the last !vote
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have a copy of the book that the article is largely referenced from, I can confirm that the claims mentioned above and in the article are present in the text. Very happy to privately share images of the text if need be. Also the Article's kindly provided by Nick-D add further credibility and notariety to the article. I have also found Sarll regerstered in the following RAF lists backing up the claims later in the article about his wartime history. [26] SALVAHOUSE (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone disputes that the book exists, but can we treat that book as a reliable source? If it simply repeats claims about 25 foot alligators, 35 foot pythons and 3 foot babies, then I don't see how we could trust the rest of the book. However if the book differentiates between things that the writer was able to verify, and treats the more improbable claims as merely claims that exceed anything in the Guinness book of records knows of, then yes it could be treated as a reliable source. If the book isn't reliable then all we have is an officer and film cameraman who doesn't approach notability either for his military career or his film career. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just Looking through the book now to see how its phrased, as you are right, if the book takes it as fact or sees it as claims is very important for the reliability of the source. So the 3ft Long claim is described " His sister, Rosa, who is four years his senior, remembers only that he was 3 feet long." - So obviously a child memory and not a fact. The Aligator claim is a typo "Tiger Hired four dugout canoes...which carried a number of long boxes with holes drilled in and a couple of handles on top. Some of the boxes measured as much as twenty-five feet long." - The box was 25ft not the alligator, Sarll was clearly ambitious but no record breaking aligators are mentioned. One way or another I have edited the article to reflect the communities concerns as far as possible. To add, this article [27] has a nice consice summary of sarlls life including photos of him with his plethora of medals and old images while he was a camera man for pathe SALVAHOUSE (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the sources mentioned above combined make him borderline notable. I also found an article in the Essex Chronicle (on proquest, any wikipedia editor can get it through TWL) by the title of "Legacy of adventurer's global trips to go under the hammer: CASKET: Relic of ancient Egypt set to be auctioned" and some other coverage like this that seems just enough to pass GNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that there's enough coverage to be notable. Implausible claims should be removed from the article, or described as "Sarll claims that (x)." This can be handled through normal article editing. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It might be worth discussing on the talk page whether this content is better framed as a broader article or section about race and gender in Conan the Barbarian. Sandstein 10:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bêlit

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. At best this can be redirected to the novellete she appeared in (Queen of the Black Coast) - there is next to no referenced (and non-pure plot) content to merge, anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not second nomination, but the article was moved into the namespace that another now deleted article now occupied... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is covered in sources such as Race and Popular Fantasy Literature and Conan Meets the Academy. Note that the name comes from ancient Mesopotamia and there's lots of scholarly discussion about it as a title used for various goddesses, So the previous nomination was erroneous too. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:IGNORINGATD; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything in those sources that goes beyond mentions in passing of plot summaries. Can you quote what you found, if it is better than this? TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are the same sources referred to by Toughpigs below. Here's a quote for you
    ... it is the corrupt bias of the will that bribes and besots the understanding: none so blind as those that will not see.
    — Matthew Henry
Weak delete I haven't been able to find more than passing mentions, so it doesn't seem like a properly encyclopedic article can be written at the moment. Conan Meets the Academy, for example, which seems like it ought to be a goldmine for substantial coverage of notable characters, never spends more than a paragraph on Belit, usually discusses her in conjunction with at least one other character, and the paragraph itself is always about some aspect of Conan which is merely illustrated by his relationship with Belit. It is no help for, for example, identifying basic facts about the origins and reception of the character. It seems like she is fairly important in-fiction -- this source calls her the one true love of Conan's life -- but at least in academic sources she does not seem to have attracted attention. I hesitate, though, since this is an older property and thus it's possible better sources exist only in print. Other places to look might be articles specifically on women in Conan, or perhaps "popular" sources like fantasy magazines, which sometimes publish various retrospectives or commentaries-- I could imagine someone writing about how this character was important to them. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 17:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Passing mentions do not equate to notability. Should print sources ever be uncovered, the topic should be explored first from the context of the main article anyway. TTN (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources are not passing mentions, and discuss the character in detail, including the gender and race implications of her portrayal. Conan Meets the Academy comments on her subservient gendered relationship with Conan, despite being a fierce warrior. Race and Popular Fantasy Literature has several pages on Belit's character (pg 48-50), discussing the racial coding of her characterization as an emancipator of Black slaves. The character is also discussed in The Robert E. Howard Guide (Skelos Press, 2018). I added references and quotes to the article from all three sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Now those are much better sources, but I can access only the first one, where there is indeed a paragraph long discussion of her. How long are the sections in the other two books, and does the Guide go beyond a plot summary? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The section in Race and Popular Fantasy Literature goes on for a little over three pages, starting on page 48 and going to the top of page 51. The Robert E. Howard Guide discusses Belit for about a page. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would be helpful if you could quote the page ranges. Re The Robert E. Howard Guide, do you refer to the text on pages 88-89 (accessible at Amazon at [28])? If so, the page is about the story she appears, in, through I'll grant that there seems about a paragraph-long content that is about her. For Race and Popular Fantasy Literature, I assume you mean the mentions on pages 48-51? Page 51 is not available for me, as for the others, those pages are not only about her, other characters are discussed there as well, interwoven with discussion of her. Geneerlously we could say she gets about two paragraphs on those pages, not counting some pure plot summary and quotations from books. Hmmmm. This is better than nothing, and certainly better than plot summaries that are the only thing often found for such characters. I checked again, however, and I can't find anything substantial in Google Scholar outside the sources already presented here. Hmmmm. If only there was as much as a section about her, not even a chapter, in a work somewhere... this is all really in the blurry zone between in-depth and passing, effectively few sentences in few sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Did you see what I added to the article based on the Race and Popular Fantasy Literature source? The section analyzes Belit's role as a white woman in relationship to her "savage" black crew. This is real-world literary criticism that goes beyond plot description. It is certainly not a passing mention. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said, you found some good sources, I am however still not sure if this is sufficient. I am considering withdrawing this nom, but a bit more in sources would help. The mentions are paragraph long, which is better than in-passing sentence or two, but still, it is just a paragraph here or there. That's, for me, is borderline. But if others think this is sufficient, maybe it is for the best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am swayed by the sources uncovered here. The article doesn't need to be long, but it seems that meeting the minimums of WP:GNG is done. I have no concern over short Stub- or Start-class articles. As a character that has also now starred in her own comic book series, if a reader were to look up the character to discern interest, a standalone article would probably better serve them than sifting through extraneous information about the rest of the original work . There may be some character-specific discussion in those 16 reviews, but I don't think searching them for content that is probably not better than what has already been presented is necessary. -2pou (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reading through the comments, I think fellow editors identified support for notability; I think this one is a keeper.GizzyCatBella 🍁 07:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or merge - after a review of the sources raised in this discussion. This book has a few passing mentions about the character's name during the racial implications of one of the Conan storylines, which is really more of a critique of race and racism in the Conan series at large. The mentions are not particularly on topic or substantial enough to establish notability for the character, but it's enough to add more critical reception to the Conan series or universe. Jontesta (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case. Race and Popular Fantasy Literature spends several pages (pg 48-50) talking specifically about Belit's role as the white savior of a crew of "savage" Black people. If you look at the article, you can see how I used this and other sources to build up non-trivial coverage of the topic. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TTN. WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS do not equate to notability, and there are no sources that address this subject directly and in detail, as per the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete there are sources that are right on the edge of meeting the general notability guideline. The race/gender politics of Conan are worth an article (or at least a section) somewhere, but the articles found don't really establish notability of this character. There's a way to cover this, but worst case, take the sources about race/gender and summarize them more accurately at some other Conan article. Archrogue (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While a Gscholar search on simply "Belit" produces an absurd number of results (overwhelmingly OCR'd variations on belit-tle), targeted searches (like "Conan Belit" and "Howard Belit" produce very manageable sets with plausible sources, many non-English. "Fandom and the Nostalgia of Masculinity"; “'Barbarian Heroing' and Its Parody"; "'Death to the Masters!': The Role of Slave Revolt in the Fiction of Robert E. Howard"; "Beefy Guys and Brawny Dolls"; "Heroes in the Wind"; "The Dark Man Men, Part Three" -- these may not, individually, be sufficient, but collectively these and many other articles provide more than enough commentary to establish notability, even without looking at the nonEnglish articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those sources address Belit, rather than general gender in the series? czar 02:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ping me if content needs to be checked for merging. Tone 19:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of the Human Torch

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

Unnecessary article split that goes into too much detail about in-universe details and fails to justify its existence through reliable sources needed to pass WP:GNG. I don't even know if it's possible to establish independent notability for such a split because any sources, should they even exist, would likely be weighted towards one particular interpretation or another rather than the whole grouping. This should be maybe a paragraph in the main article at best, but I don't think any existing content is worthy of being merged. It should be started from scratch. TTN (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a basic summary to Human Torch. BOZ (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge if anyone thinks there is referenced content to be rescued. The entire Category:Alternative versions of comics characters likely needs depopulating. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Arrticle seems like all WP:OR // Timothy :: talk 13:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as a compromise. The main character article is still well within WP:SIZE recommendations, and this spinout is both short and non-WP:NOTABLE. There's no sense in spinning out sections that are only sourced to primary sources, when policy is to shorten and summarize, according to WP:PLOT and WP:DUE. If several sections of the main article grow with some third party sources for context, those might eventually be candidates for spin-outs that would meet the WP:GNG. But not yet. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although several "keep" opinions apear questionable, nobody except for the nominator supports deletion. Sandstein 10:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Pinchas Lubinsky

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

I almost passed it but the sources gave me the pause - with such unclear sources, this could be a hoax. Now, I don't think it is, but while looking for the sources, no English sources seem to discuss him outside a few websites that don't look very reliable. If there are mentions on books, they are inaccessible to me, and Google Scholar and News have nothing. Now, there may be something in Hebrew or Yddish, but the he wiki article was also recently created by the same relatively new account, and the clincher is, the subject seems to fail WP:ANYBIO and Wikipedia:Notability (priests) which says "The Chief Rabbis of nation states with large Jewish communities are notable by virtue of their status." Well, he was chief rabbi of a city, and overall I am afraid this reads like a WP:OBIT of a non-notable priest. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 19 August newspaper articled 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment - Please note that many of the references are from Hamodia newspaper that has a circulation of 160,000 according to Business Insider (see: here)--Steamboat2020 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The name is commonly spelt Lubinski as here, for example. Maybe the title needs work but deletion would be premature when we haven't even got the name variants clear yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right that the -i variant of his name seems to be more popular (assuming we are talking about the same person). But I reviewed the sources for the -i variant right now and sadly I don't see anything to work with, either. But by all means, if we can find some good sources and salvage it, it would be good for everyone. But if the current biography is comprehensive, than the likely problem is that he just did not do anything notable in his life... Not all rabbis are notable, per cited guidelines, and this so far appears to be the case here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus & AleatoryPonderings #1) The man spelled his name "Lubinsky" as opposed to "Lubinski", so I used his spelling. #2) You will see that I used "Zichron Chaim Pinchas, 1986 Brooklyn NY" as reference numerous times throughout the article. "Zichron Chaim Pinchas" was a book published by Rabbi Lubinsky's family on the first anniversary of his death. It is mostly in hebrew and yiddish, however, in the back of the book they published a collection of 9 newspaper articles (some in English) that were written about Rabbi Lubinsky. Unfortunately, they didn't indicate which newspapers these clippings were taken from so I could not quote the initial source as reference. Regardless, it certainly isn't a "hoax". In general, in the immediate aftermath of the holocaust, there were tens of thousands of survivors in the area and the Jewish community in Hannover - at that time - was notable. I also don't think that English articles on the internet should be the litmus test of whether person is notable enough, when we are dealing with a "Polish" born person who was a notable Rabbi in "Germany" and was a member of a "Yiddish" speaking community --Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Steamboat2020: Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable, but they still need to pass WP:RS. A book published (WP:SELFPUBLISHed?) by a family tends to run afoul of the WP:GNG requirement of indepdence of sources (see also WP:NOTOBITUARY). If it contains excerots from reliable newspapers, however, that can help. Have you tried looking at newspapers.com and such? You can get access to them through the WP:LIBRARY, IIRC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus: I didn't rely on anything the family wrote in that book. I did rely on the copies of 9 actual newspaper articles that they included in the addendum. Keep in mind, this was published in 1986 before everybody had computers. It would have been virtually impossible for the family to create real looking newspaper articles at that time. Unfortunately, newspapers from that time period that catered to the Orthodox Jewish community aren't on "newspapers.com"--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The book "Zichron Chaim Pinchos" was featured in a "book review" in a publication of Agudath Israel of America called "Dos Yiddishe Vort" (November-December Vol. XXXIII Issue 264 page 59) by Joseph Fridenson and it was considered a noteworthy publication. I therefore consider it to be a reliable reference.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can someone explain in more detail how this person meets WP:Notability (biographies), please? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: Hannover was one of the largest jewish communities in Europe in the aftermath of the Holocaust. During the holocaust 90% of Polish Jewry were killed (see:The Holocaust in Poland). The survivors had been unable to practice Jewish ritual in the concentration camps and upon liberation most of them didn't immediately just "snap back" to religious observance. Rabbi Lubinsky together with a handful of other Rabbis brought many of these holocaust survivors back "into the fold" and in a large part because of them there are today over 1.8 million Haredi Jews (see: Haredi Judaism). It's important not only to look at the persons activities, within the context of the time period they were performed in, but also look at how they impacted future generations. Rabbi Lubinsky played a vital role in rebuilding Haredi Judaism from ashes of the Holocaust and for that he is notable.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this great scholar and rebbe! Lubinski was a Polish Holocaust survivor and lost his wife at Stutthof. In the immediate aftermath of the war he was instrumental in rebuilding the spiritual life of Jewish Polish refugees who fled the pogroms in Poland to the Bergen-Belsen refugee camp in the British occupation zone. Much has been written on this great scholar: [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomed Tamid (talk • contribs) 09:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[38]: more on the spiritual greatness, mesirot of the rebbe. In 1944 he was a forced laborer in the HASAG camp in Częstochowa Poland. He organized the chasidim to keep Pesach, not eating chametz. They stored food in secret. They hid potatoes for the holiday, and furtively roasted them in an industrial oven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomed Tamid (talk • contribs) 10:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Ping User:Sandstein: can you add whatever template(s) are customary used here to indicate we have a WP:SPA here, whose edits are limited to participation in this AfD? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Just because @Lomed Tamid is a new user whose edits are limited to this discussion doesn’t change the fact that the 10 books quoted are very helpful to this discussion.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Just to clarify: I agree that @Lomed Tamid seems to have some personal connection to Rabbi Lubinsky and the "keep" vote shouldn't carry any weight. However, the substance that this user provided to our discussion shouldn't just be ignored because the user happens to have a personal agenda--Steamboat2020 (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I reviewed the 10 books (in hebrew) cited above by @Lomed Tamid that speak about Rabbi Lubinsky at length. I believe 10 books (written by different authors covering many different subjects) in addition to the sources already provided as references in the article qualifies as "Significant coverage" and bestows "notability" (see: Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline) upon the subject. I could build the additional 10 books into the page and cite them as references. However, I don't want to waste anymore time working on a page that is nominated to be deleted. Once notability is established by an administrator then we can discuss improving the article. --Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you provide bibliographical information, page numbers, and quotes from those book, to demonstrate the sources are reliable and not in passing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - those 10 books largely discusses Rabbi Lubinsky’s leadership role during the Holocaust.
    - Book #1: Title: With My Close Ones, I Shall Be Sanctified. Author: Rabbi Joshua Eibschitz. Published in 2004 discusses Rabbi Lubinsky at length on pages 351-359

- - - Book #2: Title: The Magnificence of Israel. Author: Aaron Swerski. Published in 1997 devotes several paragraphs discussing Rabbi Lubinsky on page 350.

- - - Book #3: Title: God’s Sanctifiers. Author: Yechiel Granatstein. Published in 2006 devotes several paragraphs to discussing Rabbi Lubinsky on page 304

- - - Book#4 Title: The Holocaust & It’s Survivors. Author: Gershon Greenberg - Bar-Ilan University. Published in 1994 devotes several paragraphs to discussing Rabbi Lubinsky on page 277

- - - Book#5 Title: Tree of Our Forefathers . Author: Simkah Reiz . Published in 1993 discusses Rabbi Lubinsky at length on pages 85-87

- - - Book#6 Title: With Holiness & Strength. Author: Rabbi Joshua Eibschitz. Published in 1993 devotes several paragraphs to discussing Rabbi Lubinsky on page 66

- - - Book #7 Title: Holocaust Survivors in Germany. Author: Tsemach Tzamiron. Published in 1970 devotes several paragraphs to discussing Rabbi Lubinsky on pages 54-55

- - - Book #8 Title: Glory & Strength . Author: Yechiel Granatstein. Published in 1986 devotes several paragraphs to discussing Rabbi Lubinsky on page 86

- - - Book #9 Title: Greatness of Jews in The Concentration Camps. Author: Menashe Unger. Published in 1970 devotes several paragraphs to discussing Rabbi Lubinsky on page 224

- - - Book #10 Title: Haggadah- Passover in Concentration Camp. Author: Gideon Rafael Ben Michael. Published in 2016 devotes several paragraphs to discussing Rabbi Lubinsky on page 32

--Steamboat2020 (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:AGF and GNG. I can't verify Steamboat2020's sources because I can't read Hebrew, but Steamboat2020 has effectively met Piotrus' challenge to name and describe the Hebrew sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, per AGF, you are right. If we assume those books exist and are reliable (not self-published, etc.). I'd like to see their original names and/or links to worldcat. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: The links to the books were already provided above by @Lomed-Tamid. As per your request, I provided the bibliographical information and page numbers in English from those book. I really, don't understand what more you want??--Steamboat2020 (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Steamboat2020: First, please note that what I am asking for is not required, as in, you don't have to do this, and the article may well be kept even if you ignore my request. But what I'd like to see (and if I see it I'd withdraw my deletion vote) would be at least two paragraphs, in English (so, translated quotes) that show that the subject has been discussed in-depth (and not in passing), plus commentary on why the sources being quoted from are reliable (i.e. not self-published or written by relatives or people with WP:COI). That would demonstrate the subject passes GNG/ANYBIO beyond any doubt. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @PIOTRUS: _ Respectfully, I feel like you keep moving the goal post--Steamboat2020 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lubinski - notable Holocaust survivor. Steamboat2020 has found some reliable sources and presented them here. Wm335td (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- seems notable--Cts499m (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE. Account has <20 edits at the time of the vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - true, but I still can have an opinion on the matter--Cts499m (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course. Except given that per WP:DUCK you are not a new editor, but a returning one, one has to wonder whether you are not trying to avoid a ban or vote twice here... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Assume good faith!--Cts499m (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Towards an account that cites a policy in their <20th edit in a niche Wikipedia discussion? Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Piotrus: Although contributions from newcomers are not always viewed as equally important, deletion is not decided by voting anyway (see: Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Deletion_discussions). That is why I prefer to focus on the substance of the arguments being made by the participants of this discussion instead of just focusing on the person's username account history.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Steamboat2020: We need to strike the balance between arguments and potential WP:POINTed disruption. For example, in the last few months I've been a victim of on- and off-wiki harassment by a now-indef banned editor who was active in the topic area this article is related to and who has used dozens of socks. Now, I am not saying they are engaged in this discussion, and assuming good faith is good, as I don't want to poison the well. At the same time, to ignore the possibility that someone is trying to disrupt our process and harass editors would invoke another adage, about putting one hand in the sand. We need to consider the arguments, yes, but sometimes there is a more to them than appears. When an account is clearly new and edits a problematic area, it may be a coincidence - or not. WP:VANISH or WP:DUCK? Toss a coin I guess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Piotrus - even if we discard the comments of the new users there are still enough established editors who voted to keep this article - respectfully - you are the only who questioned whether this article should be kept--Steamboat2020 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the most important rabbis in the British occupation zone. Thousands of agunot were freed of tether and allowed to remarry by his rulings. The hostility of the nominator is incomprehensible, is there some ulterior motive here? NochiZ (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While I strongly believe Rabbi Lubinsky is noteworthy and I advocate to keep his page. Nevertheless, I need to point out that @Nochiz's edits are limited to participation in this AfD--Steamboat2020 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC) However, reasonable arguments from newcomers are always welcome (see: Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Deletion_discussions).--Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's tons of text above, but very little of it provides any substantial argument for notability. To carry weight, any arguments need to demonstrate that the subject meets one or more notability guidelines; nothing else counts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: among the excessive text above, there certainly was a substantial argument made for notability. In fact, other then the nominator (@piotrus), the consensus was to keep the page. Granted, there were a couple of new users (@Lomed Tamid & @nochiZ) who participated but the majority were established users (@Andrew Davidson and @Toughpigs and @Wm335td and @Cts499m) and they all voted to keep it.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe Steamboat2020 sources demonstrate notability. // Timothy :: talk 05:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm satisfied as to notability with the non-English sources.--Jahaza (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arvindr Khaira

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

A non-notable music director and producer. Fails WP:GNG. Zoodino (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't qualify WP:GNG, QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 00:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage to establish GNG. - hako9 (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale of Johnpacklambert & hako9. Celestina007 09:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Read (personal trainer)

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

Subject appears non-notable. All sources seem promotional and unreliable. Upon searching for trusted sources, I was unable to find anything. The article is unlikely to be improved. ElliotPadfield (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ElliotPadfield (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ElliotPadfield (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: No notability at all and certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG criteria nor is subject WP:NOTEWORTHY. Pahiy (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I meet WP:GNG . VocalIndia (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notabilty. scope_creep^Talk 15:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMOTIONAL and not WP:NOTEWORTHY. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Auditya Venkatesh

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

All of the refs listed in the article are interview articles of the subject, making them clearly inadmissible as an independent ref. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Page creator is welcome to list best three sources in the discussion, if wants to rebut the claim. Zoodino (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interviews do not add towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Masyanya episodes

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

Non notable list of episodes in violation of WP:LISTN. Article was deprodded with no attempt to improve with reliable sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't necessarily say it's a clear example of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT since there are lots of "List of XX episodes" out there, but this one has no source, and even the parent article this spins out from is of questionable notability with only one YouTube reference. -2pou (talk) 22:02, 17 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) 05:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Even the notability of the series itself is questionable. Ajf773 (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I speedy deleted the article as it was created by a sockpuppet of Daaask. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Konjam Coffee Niraya Cinema

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

No sign of notability. No significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Zoodino (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 18:04, 26 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 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Adamson

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

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR Roller26 (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If his works actually had come to be seen as important, we would have much better sourcing on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:NAUTHOR: [39] (2-page review); [40] (1-paragraph review); and [41] (1-paragraph review). Reluctant to rely too heavily on the latter, but they are indexed on JSTOR which to my knowledge is discriminating as to what it indexes. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, JSTOR indexes 12 million articles, I don't think that just 3 articles reviewing your work (2 of which are 1 paragraph based) is enough to be considered notable under WP:AUTHOR criteria. -- Roller26 (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. His Marx Brothers book is very notable, a search will bring up sources for it, but that book does not have an article. If that book had its own article, maybe the article for the author would be unnecessary? Donaldd23 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of possible merger or renaming
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep ~~as well~~, especially because of the Marx Brothers book, which Vanity Fair and RogerEbert.com have praised. Caro7200 (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews exist for his other books--the Los Angeles Times reviewed the Walter Lantz book, just to mention one, so keeping this article under the Joe Adamson name would seem to be appropriate. Caro7200 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources pass WP:GNG per comments from Caro7200 Donaldd23 AleatoryPonderings, [42] puts it over the top for me. // Timothy :: talk 13:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has been shown in this discussion that his works have been reviewed in reliable sources such as The LA Times and academic journals so that he passes WP:NAUTHOR criteria 4 (c), in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmatians (band)

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

Effectively unsourced since creation in 2006 [sic]. A search turned up their Discogs page (according to which they released only the one album listed in the article) and nothing else. (They are not to be confused with other bands with similar names, such as Australian duo The Dalmatians.) Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, reliable Seattle coverage seems to be about it. Caro7200 (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability / no reliable sources. Sourced to record label website and Last.fm, none of them establish any notability. Since they have a rather generic name, many other stuff was found (including the actual dog, other bands with this name / other bands whose name includes the word "dalmatians") but relatively little stuff about them. It seems to me that they aren't very popular / a very underground band so nobody covered them. (Even though I have seen underground bands with more coverage.) I find that weird that even though they are active, to this day, they released only one album to very little fanfare (or should I say none). I have a suspicion that they have actually split up a long time ago but I might be wrong. But still, just another non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:43, 26 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 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Himmata Ram Bhambhu

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Coverage found only for when the subject was awarded Padma Shri (fourth highest civilian honor in India), which classifies as WP:1E. Zoodino (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the award he won is not at a level to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amman (TV series)

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

Fails WP:TVSERIES and WP:GNG, no significant (better to say none) coverage in reliable and independent sources. P.S. - Times of India (used as a ref in the article) has a history of including promotional articles and the general consensus is not to accept it as a reliable source in such context. Zoodino (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of reliable resources. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources and WP:BEFORE don't meet notability. Might just be WP:TOOSOON, but it might never be WP:CRYSTAL // Timothy :: talk 14:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Sunshine1191 (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alok Ojha

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

Article about a non-notable person. Making claim to notability. Yes he/she may have helped saved lives but still doesnt meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:RS. Lapablo (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non-notable. Page was created by a blocked user and should have potentially been nominated for speedy deletion. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly non-notable cobblers. The closest this gets to notability is WP:ONEEVENT, and even that's still lightyears away. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability. Noahfgodard (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments. Rogermx (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Doesn't qualify WP:GNG QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 00:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability not established Ab207 (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not justified. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and notability presented is just WP:ONEEVENT ~ Amkgp 💬 06:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not seeing the need for salting, given that the page hasn't been repeatedly recreated. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies

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

Non-notable predatory journal. All Akinik Publications I could find are in Beall's list (individually, not trough the publisher). Indexed nowhere. Fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and potentially salt given the damage having an article on this could do. It's also on Wikispecies and should possibly be deleted there too, though not sure if all journals with ISSNs are automatically included? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NJOURNAL. add salt. // Timothy :: talk 14:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom ~ Amkgp 💬 15:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. With the amount of proper citations in the article now, I feel this passes WP:N. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 04:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid River (video game)

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

This game does not meet the notability guidelines. Nothing I could find proves that this is deserving of its own page. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have substantial changes to make to the page, including new references that show it is deserving of its own page. These major edits should make the page suitable to remain (I will be ready to add them by the end of this weekend). I have tried to settle this in the talk page, but my most recent messages have been ignored. On top of this, I am concerned that initially the page was just redirected to a generic list of Namco games, effectively deleting all its content, which isn't following the proper procedure. Who knows how many other Namco pages have been pseudo removed in this way to avoid any discussion on keeping pages? kingjuliando :^) 09:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I redirected a lot of these Namco pages because none offer any significant coverage from sources. I don't have the time to mark every single one of those for deletion, and I can see these being suitable redirects, hence my decision. So I don't see how that "isn't following the proper procedure", since WP:R says that is allowable. None of the sources you added provide any significant coverage anyway, all of it is just mentions in pages for other games. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 15:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry I think there's been a misunderstanding; we haven't updated the page yet to include the numerous references I mentioned. As I suggested on the talk page, maybe the best course of action is to revoke this deletion request for the time being and wait for the updated version of the page (which should be completed by this weekend)? I'm obviously happy to notify you of the updated version to see if you're happy with it! Is that a fair compromise for the moment (as I'm not sure how quickly these deletion requests get reviewed)? kingjuliando :^) 16:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As KingJulianDO promised to update the page with more references. I'm busy reworking a game list for a computer but i can help to find the game's exact release date after i'm done with the list, assuming the page is not deleted by the time i finish with that endeavor... Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That comes off as WP:CRYSTALBALL. I need to see these for myself before I change my decision. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 17:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KFC Srinagar

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

This article is not necessary to be on Wikipedia Chinar(Message) 16:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Chinar(Message) 16:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual KFC outlets are not usually notable, even if they are the first in a territory (all be it one of 350 in KFC#India as a whole). A bit of news on this opening, but no reason to expect anything else.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see anything worthy for a merge to KFC#India. A redirect is unnecessary. - hako9 (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. Nothing encyclopedic in the article to redirect. Ab207 (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fast food franchises are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - scraping the bottom of the notability barrel unfortunately Spiderone 22:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Nominator. Priyanjali singh (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is nothing significant about this outlet. I can find this news [43] although it relies on Twitter posts. There can some significance due to it being KFC's first outlet in Kashmir, but in this case multiple mainstream media should have reported it. Without such reports, I support deleting this article.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus Media Technology

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

Unreachable website that had little to no actual impact during its lifespan. Fully half of the text is not about this company/web site at all but about other things the founder has done in an obvious attempt to pump up the citations. Of the ten citations about the company, seven are 404 or redirected and no longer available. Two of the remaining are simple press releases and one is a story in the Independent newspaper about that paper buying tech from this company for the paper's then-new video news service. None of the sources in the article are independent of the company. The possibility of making this an article about Eborn (the founder) since two-thirds of the cites are about their projects instead is also undermined by the same sourcing problems. There are no other sources available through searches to suggest notability of the person or the company under GNG or any relevant SNG that do not share these issues. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t really see anything here that looks like solid notability. The article has been updated regularly for years with new press releases so although the whole thing is pretty messy the main purpose of it appears to be promotional and I don’t believe most if the contributions have been made by uninvolved editors. Mccapra (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GAP (G.A.P.) Ensemble

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

I cannot find sources which indicate that WP:NMUSIC is met SmartSE (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable ensemble. Classical music is awesome, so I am a bit saddened to say this. But no evidence of notability nor reliable sources. Just trash sites like apple music, deezer, amazon, google play, blank Allmusic page, concert sites, the website of the subject and various retail sites. It has no articles on other Wikipedias. Also, the creator of the article hadn't edited anything else besides this article and its talk page, so there's a COI (conflict of interest) around here. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: I didn't want to vote delete, but doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. // Timothy :: talk 14:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep This is an exceptionally difficult field in which to meet our notability requirements, but I have found three independent reviews of their cd releases at 1 2 and 3. Pinging @Gerda Arendt: who knows this field well and may have other thoughts/contributions. Mccapra (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was pinged and will look. The first impression is not too good, due to an awful article name (GAP (ensemble)?) and bad formatting, but that only shows an inexperienced user. A CD review by musicweb indicates notability, though, strongly so! - I will look, but am still in my morning routine, and behind with many things after a busy day yesterday, - see my talk. Patience please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked now, and they made world premiere recordings reviewed by experts. I added four refs, and will find more, but past midnight, - some more patience please. - Adding: the article should be G. A. P. Ensemble, looking at the sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per sources found by Mccapra --Whiteguru (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Mccapra and Gerda, seems to meet NMUSIC, with the caveat that I don't know enough about the sources to assess their reliability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed vote from above): as per sources found by Mccapra and Gerda Arendt. // Timothy :: talk 05:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nang (Sikhism)

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

An apparently non-notable concept in Nihang Sikhism. I found an entry on SikhiWiki ([44], great name, btw), but it cites no sources and suggests that this is more of a derogatory term than a theologically significant concept. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Non-notable. The article is a copy of another article on SikhiWiki. SD0001 (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability. If sources can be found to WP:V and establish WP:WEIGHT, it might fit into Shunning#In religion or Excommunication. // Timothy :: talk 14:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Georg Arlt

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

I cannot find sources that demonstrate that either WP:BIO or WP:PROF are satisfied. SmartSE (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough citations for his field, criteria for becoming a fellow of the Royal Geographical Society is weak, being a member of UNWTO is not prestigious enough, and while he has published many articles in news media, there is little secondary sources talking about him. Therefore I believe he does not qualify for WP:NACADEMIC nor WP:AUTHOR. He is the founder of the China Outbound Tourism Research Institute (COTRI) [45], so I believe some contents of the article can be saved by placing it in an article about COTRI, which could be created if it is relevant enough (it seems to be). Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 17:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Society memberships (but not highly-selective honorary fellowships) and publications (only one of which is moderately well cited) are not enough for WP:PROF, and the article presents no other case for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Srinivas Ayyadevara

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

He doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE or even WP:NPOL. He is amongst top officials of a number of local organizations. However he doesn't have significant or independent coverage. All coverage about him is either 1 liner quotes about some recent business impact or a press release stating his election or nomination to such and such post. Roller26 (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this reads like a CV of a chartered accountant, is otherwise an individual who doesn't meet the requirements of WP:GNG from the coverage recieved. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a not even close to being notable accountant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: By my count, this accountant does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC // Timothy :: talk 18:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nomination. Searches do not turn anything meaningful either. Ktin (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thermomass theory

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

This incomprehensible article is about a non-notable speculative concept in thermodynamics. The article, which was written by one of the people who came up with the idea, is sourced entirely to the authors' own papers and I have not been able to find much beyond this. There's no significant mentions in news or book results either, suggesting this is a hypothesis that has not gained prominence or acceptance beyond the authors' own work. Reyk _YO! 15:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article needs WP:TNT to meet WP:NOTJARGON: "Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics." Given the article history, I doubt this would ever be done (properly or otherwise). // Timothy :: talk 14:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The concept does seem to have been taken up by later researchers, e.g., [46] published as Sellitto, A., and Cimmelli, V. A. (September 28, 2012). "A Continuum Approach to Thermomass Theory." ASME. J. Heat Transfer. November 2012; 134(11): 112402. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4006956. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Following on the comment from Charles Stewart, I also found a few more publications about this concept from different authors (not associated with Tsinghua University): for example this, and this. I propose a merge, but this article is so obscure that is difficult for me to see where in the vast field of thermodynamics it may fit. Alan Islas (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article was born as a copyvio, and the current mess is the result of its extirpation back in 2016. Since then the article has languished pretty much unchanged. Even though a search for "Thermomass theory" does seem to find reliable sources, there is a practical problem that nobody seems to care about this article. I believe it would just stay in this sorry state for the foreseeable future. Better to delete it. Tercer (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Nightcrawler

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

Unnecessary article split that goes into too much detail about in-universe details and fails to justify its existence through reliable sources needed to pass WP:GNG. I don't even know if it's possible to establish independent notability for such a split because any sources, should they even exist, would likely be weighted towards one particular interpretation or another rather than the whole grouping. This should be a two to three paragraph section in the main article at best, but I don't think any existing content is worthy of being merged. It should be started from scratch. TTN (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK that does not meet the WP:GNG, due to a lack of reliable third party sources. There is already an article about this character, and it's not in the best shape, requiring lots of sources, and treading much of the same ground as this. What does or does not qualify as an "alternate version" is WP:OR, and that type of subjectivity is easily resolved by not forking this from the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Massive pile of WP:OR. While it could possibly be a paragraph or two in the main article, this article is not that content. WP:TNT it. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a basic summary to Nightcrawler (comics). BOZ (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge (if anyone can find referenced valuable content to rescue). Otherwise this just a bad-style WP:FANCRUFT. What are "alternative versions" anyway? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unjustified content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV. Article itself is mostly (all) WP:OR based on primary sources. // Timothy :: talk 14:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Patriot Act, Title III. Sandstein 10:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Act, Title III, Subtitle A

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

Wow, just wow. This article is a combination of original research, essay, and mostly is only based on primary sources. It is essentially devoid of analysis by secondary sources, and should be deleteed and redirected to Patriot Act, Title III. This is in pretty clear violation of WP:IINFO-- anybody who wants this level of detail is better off just reading the law themselves. See WP:TNT. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom. Wikipedia Is Not a Lightly Annotated Statute Book. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This a a comprehensive analysis/reading of Title III, Subtitle A - I think the primary government sources are sufficient to source what is a section of a public law. It is notable passing both WP:V and WP:N. Whichever portions are deemed "essay", original research or POV push, can be pared or removed. The sheer length of Patriot Act necessitates a need for a separate article here. Individual sections are relevant - the lone Senator (Russ Feingold) to vote against the Patriot Act said his vote was based on Section 215. So it is established that sections of the law are notable. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst respectfully, Section 215 is not part of Title III, Subtitle A, but part of Title II, so it's not relevant to this Subtitle's notability. That is already covered at Section summary of the Patriot Act, Title II. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re ping Lightburst Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was making a point that parts of the Patriot act can be important or notable on their own...like 215. I think it is appropriate to have an article for Patriot Act, Title III, Subtitle A (section). Lightburst (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an annocated law book.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contributors AleatoryPonderings, Johnpacklambert, paraphrase nominator Eddie891 and make the assertion that "Wikipedia is not an annocated law book". That is correct. I suggest you should also consider that assertion irrelevant if your independent web search of the topic determined that this section of the Patriot Act had enough coverage of it in particular this it measured up to GNG.
You did conduct your own web search, before you weighed in here, right?
This is the section of the Patriot Act intended to counter terrorists use of money-laundering to covertly finance terrorist projects. It has been highly controversial, and so measures up to GNG. Can't it be adequately covered in USA Patriot Act. No. The USA Patriot Act article is already very long, and already tries to cover many related topics. It is ripe for forking.
Please re-read the deletion policy and related guidelines. If the anti-money-laundering provisions of the Patriot Act is a topic that measures up to GNG, but the current version of the article is written like "an annotated law book", that is not an argument for deletion. That is an argument for the article to be rewritten. AFD is not supposed to be used as a whip to force article improvement. Eddie891, concerns like yours should have been raised on the article's talk page, not AFD.
Maybe the article should be renamed to something like The Patriot Act's anti-money-laundering measures. Geo Swan (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, that would be a completely different topic. The article has no secondary source analysis, it's literally just a lightly annotated law book. In my web search, I found no coverage to suggest this was a notable subject. I do think that it can be adequately covered in the articles Patriot Act, Title III' which is already a content fork. In my opinion, a separate article is not merited, and I would have redirected this myself, because--even if it is notable--I feel the tnt point has been reached . If you want to write an article on the 'Patriot Act's anti-money-laundering measures', please feel free to, but that would involve completely rewriting this article, and refocusing it. I'd like to see your sourcing that the topic specifically meets WP:GNG, as well as a clear explanation why it can't be/isn't adequately covered in the article I mentioned. And I do feel that AFD was the best place to raise these concerns, as outlined above. AFAIK, one doesn't propose deletion and redirection on an article talk page. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not an encyclopedia article. I appreciate the arguments that AfD is not cleanup, but in that case I strongly feel we need to blow this up and start all over as I can't see anything salvageable from this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OR / opinion to create an annotated text. WP:WWIN. Articles need to summarize secondary sources. This article does not. // Timothy :: talk 05:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Looking at {{Patriot Act titles}}, I suspect many of them need similar scrutiny. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis Eternal

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an article about a short film that was supposed to be made a decade ago, but never was. There's so little coverage, it's impossible to say what the status is. There is some independent coverage. It's use of crowdsourcing the funding at the time, is arguably notable. Maybe that's enough for an actual released film. But, an (apparently) unreleased film, should have a higher standard. Rob (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I considered nominating this myself a few weeks ago and forget why I didn't. Crowdfunding as used in film might be notable, but this film is not. Would note that the two previous AfDs are both more than a decade old, so their precedential value is at least not obvious. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It got a small amount of coverage due to the novelty of crowd funding for the time, but then was never made and received no further coverage after that. While it looks, at first glance, to have numerous references cited, most of these are from their own website, and a number of the others don't even mention the film. Rorshacma (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like this gained very little coverage outside of the initial hubbub centering around the director crowdfunding during a time when this was less common for films. There was some coverage in 2012, but I can't view the video to see if any production/filming began. I tried looking on social media to see if there's any news about production, but all I found was a mention of casting and rehearsal in 2018. It doesn't seem like any principal photography has begun, likely because of funding issues given that there are still people soliciting for donations via posts like this. I can't load up the website, but it looks like the last post was from 2016, which isn't a good sign. If this does get made then the article can be recreated, however if this is restored it will need to be edited heavily because this article is written in a very promotional tone. I may end up editing it now to deal with tone, honestly. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did some major sprucing up. I did remove the mention of the award. It's non-notable and I can find zero mention of Stover or the film receiving the award outside of Stover's official website. Running the website through the WM doesn't really show any sign of this being a notable award either. I suppose that since I found the actual listing I could re-add the award, but it still wouldn't count towards notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Andagadu

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

Couldn't find any reliable sources for this film. TamilMirchi (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unlikely to qualify WP:NFILM. Ab207 (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: found it on multiple sites including some trusted ones.Iitianeditor (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Iitianeditor, care to add the links here or in the article so others can verify them? Just saying you found citations doesn't mean much. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23: here are the links 1.https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8690194/ 2.https://www.amazon.in/Andra-Andagadu-Telugu-Movie-VCD/dp/B00H8W2XHQ 3.https://in.bookmyshow.com/thalayolaparambu/movies/andhra-andagadu/IEMV001347/user-reviews Iitianeditor (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They do not qualify as reliable sources. See WP:ICTFSOURCES to see what is can be considered reliable. Even within the reliable sources, the coverage has to be independent and significant, not merely mentioning of the film, ie, at least two critical reviews would be needed. --Ab207 (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM. Citations listed above are nor reliable/independent. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liana Aleksanyan

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

Has been listed at WP:PNT for two weeks without translation. Procedural nomination, unable to prod due to previous BLPPROD Jac16888 ^Talk 14:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per standard WP:PNT procedures. Not in English, grace period has expired. No prejudice against a future article about this person in English. Largoplazo (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Delete - The article was listed at Pages Needing Translation and nobody did so within two weeks, so the procedure at WP:NOTCSD #16 is to nominate for deletion. It appears that Ms. Aleksanyan might qualify for an article here because she has gotten some notice in the classical music community, but it still needs to be in English. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BTW, WP:BLPPROD and WP:PROD are independent of each other, so you could have PRODed.Techie3 (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice of being recreated in English. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the English language Wikipedia. Articles should be in English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Mysterious~~Delete If you click to see the Armenian-wiki article, it is an article about an entirely different person, "Liana A. Aleksanyan ( August 4 , 1961 , Yerevan , Armenian SSR , USSR ), Armenian physician , therapist. Doctor of Medical Sciences ( 2001 ), Professor ( 2002 )." If this Armenian opera singer is notable, where is the Armenian-wiki article about her? HouseOfChange (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That another person has the same name is neither mysterious nor significant (would you have guessed that there are two notable people named Miatta Fahnbulleh?), nor is it significant (and only a bit unusual, not mysterious, IMO) that the first Wikipedia on which someone chose to post an article isn't the one for the subject's native language. In this case, it could be because the person who posted this article writes well only in Armenian but wasn't aware there's an Armenian Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Largoplazo:, and with a little more effort I did find her article in Armenian wiki which also has problems with "lack of credible third-party sources". Based on "before" searching, she seems not to meet GNG. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which now makes this an A2 speedy deletion candidate, but as the AfD is on, let it just run its course. Lectonar (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fillerbunny

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

Blablubbs recently PRODed this Article with the rationale "Article is completely unsourced and makes no indication of the subject's notability despite having been tagged since 2015. I can't see any indication of this meeting WP:BOOKCRIT and even if, the article would likely have to be almost entirely rewritten." I agree with this rationale, but the article had already been PRODed in MAY 2015. So I am sending it to AFD. Techie3 (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Techie3 (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original rationale above. Thanks again for catching my mistake, Techie3. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nimaan Sidhu

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

Non notable singer who does not satisfy any criteria from WP:SINGER and only cites YouTube videos as sources. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, the article is sourced to two youtube videos and Wikipedia. :) By the way, delete. No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Google results are the usual junk like social media sites, Youtube videos and download sites, as well as the subject's own website. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Actually there are 6 or 7 links to YouTube videos, but who's counting. The article is clearly an attempted promotion, and rather desperate to boot. The reason the article tries to pass off YouTube and Facebook links as sources is because that's all the guy has. He is not present beyond the typical social media and self-uploaded streaming services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:43, 26 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. This is a close call, but I believe there is enough consensus to suggest the article should be improved and not deleted Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Ye Hee Lee

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. All of the refs are either pieces written by the journalist herself or in one case, an interview, and another one being a blog. A WP:BEFORE search did not yield significant independent sources about the journalist. SD0001 (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. SD0001 (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per either GNG ~~or NPOL~~. (Striking, not cutting outright, because I think an official of a major trade organization qualifies for a presumption of notability analogous to that we give politicians.) She's the president of the Asian American Journalists Association ([47]). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep perhaps WP:ANYBIO I cannot see much notable about the subject, and many of the references seem like PR and trivial mention. Yet she is apparently the president of what is perhaps an obscure non-profit Asian American Journalists Association (AAJA). Her claim to notability is perhaps being reporter who is Asian. If we decide to merge or redirect I suggest the target of AAJA Lightburst (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest in maintaining this article. She is notable because she is the head of the AAJA. AAJA is well known organisation that that represents Asian Americans in mainstream media and many of the journalists who have articles in Wikipedia are members of AAJA. There are also other journalists who are also in her level that also have an article in Wikipedia, but don't have much details regarding their careers in their pages. Regarding the sources, there are many other journalists who have their information from their own sources. If its possible, we could try editing the article by adding outside sources, rather than her own sources. So, I suggest in maintaining this article rather than deleting it. Toadboy123 (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis that she is the president of a notable organisation, and has received enough attention as a journalist (there are a couple of decent interviews). I have added one ref and an external link. Tacyarg (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete* - per nominator, largely reads like a resume and almost nothing independently notable. Even AAJA reads more of a press release than an org of substantial converge. Evaders99 (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your points here. it was weak enough that I may change my mind about a weak keep. Lightburst (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am puzzled by the suggestion that the Asian American Journalists Association is obscure or non-notable. It is a large organization that has been around since 1981 and has been the subject of at least one encyclopedia entry ([48], in a book published by Routledge; see also [49]). It was also cited by the United States Commission on Civil Rights ([50]). I realize that notability is not inherited, but I think we need some perspective on how significant it is to be named the head of this association. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Probably not enough to satisfy ANYBIO on its own, but she was a Pulitzer finalist (along with some colleagues) in 2014.[51] Google Scholar also finds quite a few citations of her journalism. pburka (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She is the head of AAJA. It is not some obscure organisation. Its quite well-known among the American mainstream media and among the Asian American community. There are other journalists who don't have such positions and yet they have their own Wikipedia article. She is notable because she was a Pulitzer finalist (along with some colleagues) in 2014.[52] and also the head of AAJA. So, I suggest in maintaining the article than deleting it.Toadboy123 (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment THe only rationale for keeping that's being repeated here is that she is the President of AAJA. Being the president of an organization or a Pulitzer finalist only creates a likelihood of notability, it does not create notability by itself. The fact that the sources don't exist indicates it is not notable. As we are talking about an American living in the 21st century, no sources being available online pretty much means no sources exist at all. SD0001 (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and I fully admit that I've been unable to come up with a biographical profile for Lee in secondary sources. But it is exceptionally rare for journalists—and, indeed, authors in general—to be the subject of sustained biographical coverage. (Not all notable journalists are Bob Woodwards, after all.) That's presumably why we have subject-specific guidelines in the first place: we recognize that authors and creative professionals can become notable for their contributions to a field without being the subject of sustained biographical coverage. I think being elected president of a major trade association is an indication that Lee has been recognized by her peers as a significant figure in her field. And, as pburka notes above, her journalism (in one of America's most respected newspapers) is widely cited (Scholar cite counts: [53]). I think these facts combine to establish notability. I may well be wrong about this, and others are free to WP:TROUT me if that's the case. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are plenty of journalists who have articles about them, but still not have achieved that much form of notability. Since, she is not only the president of AAJA, but also has much of our work recognized by her peers and other well known publications (her work is also used by other mainstream media). She is also interviewed or referenced as an expert when it comes to dealing with economics within the political campaigns in U.S. So, it is preferable to maintain her Wikipedia article.Toadboy123 (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Writes for the Washington Post, The Independent, Vox, IPR and Politico. Plenty of coverage. Passes WP:SIGCOV outwith the reportage. scope_creep^Talk 10:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since her works are used by other well known mainstream media and she is among the experts within the media coverage of U.S. politics, I think its suggestible to keep her article. Toadboy123 (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]
- @Toadboy123: You have !voted more than once on this AfD, for an article that you created. You should probably strike one of your votes. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So, is the discussion considered closed ? Should we maintain the article in Wikipedia after all ?? Toadboy123 (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the discussion will be closed by an independent user or administrator after it has been active for at least one week. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadboy123: You may find WP:HELPAFD useful. The deletion process can be confusing, and it provides a good introduction. pburka (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unfortunately she hasn't played for at least one minute in a national football league game; then she would be a slam dunk notable, but I think we can over look that. President of Asian American Journalists Association (AAJA), Pulitzer finalist, writes for the Washington Post, The Independent, Vox, IPR and Politico, I think we should presume she is notable. // Timothy :: talk 05:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 05:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Sigmon

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

Lieutenant colonel doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER, and just being involved in various trials doesn't mean he's notable. The only coverage I found is essentially the same as listed in the article, local papers writing about a former soldier who lost in the primary of an election. I'm not positive about his judge/prosecutorial roles, but cannot find anything beyond the fluff that would suggests they convey notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm open to persuasion here, but on the face of it I cannot see a credible claim to notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional BLP that fails SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far below the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER, WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. It looks like the article was created by an SPA after he launched his congressional campaign so probably a promo article as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Marchetti

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

It's not clear that the title of "deputy general secretary of UEFA" is one that conveys notability. The three provided references include: a short biography as a guest presenter at a training; a link that has no mention of him; and a press release. It seems mostly that his mentions in news articles are in the context of conveying updates so the article focuses are about the updates and he's merely a spokesperson. I don't see substantive coverage for HIM, just for the news he shares. only (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. only (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. only (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence he meets GNG. Giant Snowman 18:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Fails GNG and a BEFORE search revealed nothing of note. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, largely per above. Couldn't find anything online to prove otherwise. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Podcasting in Zimbabwe

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

This is really an ad for random Zimbabwean podcasts and there's currently nothing worth keeping. There's one linked BBC review of 'The Shona Podcast', but I found nothing else suggesting that podcast was notable. I highly doubt the topic would be notable even if written about podcasting in Zimbabwe, the only good sources I found were a Springer article and a paragraph here, not quite enough. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is really blog gossip not verifiable encyclopaedic information. Not notable coverage. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gorakhpur Public School

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

Indian school with no secondary sources available at all. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. SD0001 (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SD0001 (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SD0001 (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 22:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleTree Hotel Cleveland

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

This hotel is not notable just because a minor crime was committed there. It fails WP:NBUILD. The article is mostly advertising language. Wikiwriter700 (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rather promotional article, found no sourcing to suggest notability other than a minor crime being committed, as nom notes. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A completely ordinary, average, aged, American hotel built in the 1970s. Run of the mill coverage, nothing that meets GNG or NBUILD. // Timothy :: talk 05:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 05:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Delete votes solely reference nfooty, but keep votes indicate a consensus that whilst nfooty is not me that gng is. Fenix down (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal Mejbri

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

Although this individual has received a little coverage already, they have not actually done anything in their career that would confer notability and currently fails WP:NFOOTY. If he actually ever plays a professional match, the info currently in the article will be great background info, but saying "a few big clubs wanted to sign him but he hasn't actually done anything yet" isn't good enough. – Pee Jay 14:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 14:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel Mejbri meets WP:GNG with significant independent coverage. The fact that he "hasn't actually done anything yet" is just not true. He's played for two top European clubs and accumulated a high total transfer fee in the process, while being seen as one of Europe's top prospects. He has more coverage than a young player who has just made his debut in League Two, for example. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not usually a fan of keeping articles about 17 year olds with no appearances, but this is very significant and when combined with then other coverage I am satisfied GNG is met. However some of the sources need to be removed - Express is a tabloid, and there are other non-RS/fan sites. Giant Snowman 15:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually think this just passes GNG, sources from The Independent and others, although some tabloid, it all adds up. His transfer price at such a young age also has produced a number of sources/citations. It's a rare case to have GNG before NFooty, however in this case there is enough on the web to easily establish the notability. I really don't think there will be issues. Govvy (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:FOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Clearly reaches the GNG, as per explained above. The fact he does not meet WP:FOOTY is completely irrelevant. --Coco (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Does he though? If his career ended today, I doubt you would say the same. He's not Freddy Adu, he's not being touted as the next Lionel Messi, he literally doesn't have a career yet. – PeeJay 21:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would 100% say the same. This is not a discussion between football connoisseur about whether a player has a potential career ahead or not. The goal here is to assess if this subject reaches the consensual guidelines that this encyclopedia tried to define, i.e. the GNG and its complementary subject-specific ones. The question is: are there strong reliable secondary sources about the subject of the page? And the answer clearly seems to be positive to me here. --Coco (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, this is definitely not a conversation about whether the guy has a potential career ahead, it's a conversation about whether or not he's actually done anything noteworthy yet. Granted, sources have covered him despite him never having played a senior match in his life, but that happens for a lot of players who never do anything with their careers. You may not have heard of Rhain Davis, the Australian kid who was "signed" by Manchester United at the age of nine in 2007, but that story was covered in great depth and his career never went anywhere. We don't have an article for him for that exact reason. Even the Barcelona youngster Marc Jurado, who is expected to sign for Manchester United very soon (a story that has also been covered in great depth and he's almost twice the age Davis was when United signed him), doesn't have an article here. Unfortunately, football gets a disproportionate amount of coverage in modern media, which results in stories being reported before the subject has actually done anything important. In Mejbri's case, it is not him who is notable, but the fact that he was transferred to Manchester United for millions of pounds at the age of just 16. – Pee Jay 15:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have the football guidelines for a reason. If a player does not pass them there is absolutely no reason we should keep an article on the person if theur own possible claim to notability is related to playing football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has not made a single senior appearance for any team yet. Fails WP:NFOOTY. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn’t about whether or not he passes WP:NFOOTY, we all know he doesn’t. It’s about whether he passes WP:GNG, which a fair few people agree that he does. GNG is more important than NFOOTY. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But I'm surprised by the double standards of some people here. In one case GiantSnowman tells us tells us the player fails GNG and NFOOTBALL and the article for the person who played 7 games for fully professional football club is deleted, in this case for the person who never played a game in a senior level he says to keep the article. Two cases are very similar. Corwin of Amber (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Scandic Hotels. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rica Seilet Hotel

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

This hotel is not notable and fails WP:NBUILD. The article is mostly advertising language. Wikiwriter700 (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kjell Kosberg, the architect. (Though tbh for such a distinctive building I'm surprised there aren't reviews in English/Norwegian?) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scandic Hotels --Whiteguru (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Scandic Hotels: I think the article content is not promotional, if sources can be found it can be split back out into its own article. // Timothy :: talk 05:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 05:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marklund (not-for-profit)

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

Seems a very promotional article that fails WP:NONPROFIT. The only coverage I found was in local papers which do not meet the audience requirements of NONPROFIT. Given that their's quite a bit of coverage from Northern Illinois, I felt an AFD discussion was merited. Tagged for notability since May 2009. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Worthy organisation, but not notable. I couldn't see the coverage to make it so, or an WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could reasonably be deleted under WP:G11. At least based on the sources in the article, fails WP:NORG by a mile. I note that extensive work was done on this by a now-blocked PR account, and another WP:SPA (Fourbrue12) which I'll bet my mop was a sock of MarklundPR, and an IP which (surprise, surprise), reverse-translates as mail.marklund.org. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kairali News

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP. Their rationale is:

Verifying this channel's existence itself was a hard task. No reliable coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG Reyk _YO! 13:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 08:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As per nom. Sunshine1191 (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We (TV channel)

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP. Their rationale is:

Verifying this channel's existence itself was a hard task. No reliable coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG Reyk _YO! 13:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any Malayalam speakers around? There are potential hints of notability: the Facebook has 293,000 likes. Translated, the mlwiki entry claims that the parent company is controlled by Mammootty, who is apparently a famous actor. I am not in a position to grade this on notability. Raymie (t • c) 19:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Social media followers count is not a notability criteria, the second claim fails WP:INHERITED, their association with the actor does not give them automatic notability. 2409:4073:498:21C5:A803:D6A7:7CE3:3738 (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Notability is not inherited nor determined by social media 'likes'. Spiderone 22:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that verifying its existence was a difficulty is something. Not even its parent company has an article. Easy Delete, possibly merging if we can find a good article to merge it into. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 10:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kairali TV: Doesn't have sources for stand alone article. I believe the shows listed are original programming, but no evidence of notability. Based on WP:NTV both articles need pruning. // Timothy :: talk 06:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no sources seem to be available to demonstrate notability for this. It's unfortunate that the title is a common word, which makes it difficult to search for, but there's nothing we can do about that. I also do not think this title is very useful and, since the topic isn't mentioned at Kairali TV at all, I don' think a redirect is a good idea. Reyk _YO! 07:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Reyk. I don't think there is a suitable redirect or merge target and it's not exactly a plausible search term anyway. Spiderone 10:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Karbi Anglong lynching

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

The previous AfD in 2018 closed as delete. I'm not convinced that anything has changed and WP:NOTNEWS still applies. Spiderone 09:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the article you were referring to was deleted because this one exists. PatGallacher (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted due to WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see a lasting impact so I think NOTNEWS still applies now. Spiderone 23:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Failed to meet WP:LASTING. Tessaracter (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree. First off, the "previous AfD" quoted was of another article, and happened right after the incident; it closed largely on the strength of TOOSOON, which does not apply here. As far as a lasting impact goes, a simple search turned up dozens of news hits published in the last year [54], well after the incident happened. If the lynching is still in the news -- and with news items over the last few months such as legislation citing it, the recent launch of a social media campaign prompted by it, editorials citing it, a protester cycling across the country -- it's tough to claim that its impact was ephemeral. Ravenswing 05:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and update to include the outcome of the court case as shown here:[55] --Whiteguru (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on the sources found by Ravenswing and Whiteguru, I think the article meets GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. // Timothy :: talk 06:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 06:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Suri

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

He doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. The only bit of coverage he has received is during Suri led Bay capital's acquisition of Barnes & Noble#Barnes & Noble Education which was termed by Forbes as "substantially undervalued BNED, were highly conditional and not credible". The second one is 1 or 2 pieces due to Bio diesel. He hasn't received significant coverage in any of the articles. Roller26 (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the one link does not work, but it appears to be headed to a biogrpahy from his employer, so that is not a sign of notablity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Andrew Romanoff

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

Minor member of Romanov family only born after the Russian Revolution, he has done nothing which would confer notability. PatGallacher (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ - ~~I can't figure out what might be the reason this article exists, as it seems that he has not done anything that contributes to notability as an artist or author.~~ Fails GNG and NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC) The keep !votes have persuaded me of the relevance of this article. Netherzone (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of articles of deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. First of all, being a member of a deposed royal family with enough references in Russian grants WP:GNG. Second, there are enough references, granting passing it on its own. Third, he is not just one of the princes in exile, but one of the claimants to a headship of House of Romanov - [56], [57]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim that he claims to be head of the house of Romanov is not sourced in the article. PatGallacher (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BEFORE applies here. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I believe he's notable enough to warrant a page compared to some other royals and minor nobility. --ThatBaileyLad (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Him being head of the house isn't actually discussed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is not important by WP:BEFORE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has had significant enough coverage in both Russian sources and English language sources to warrant an article. Is also one of the claimants to headship of the Russian Imperial House in the decades old dispute. - dwc lr (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Like it or lump it this man is worthy of his own Wikipedia page. He is significant enough to warrent one. His claim to being head of the Romanov Dynasty. His being the last of his Imperial Highness Tsar Nicholas II's Grand-Nephews warrents this pages existence. It does not matter that the Romanov Dynasty is no longer ruling Russia, that fact should not come into whether or not his page stays. This page supplies useful information to anyone wishing to find out about Prince Andrew Romanoff and as such I see no reason why it should be deleted. The point of Wikipedia is to educate. And education does not occur by deleting well-sourced articles on figures of importance - great or small - like Prince Andrew here. --AJBRegalia (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Sunshine1191 (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Barnet F.C. season

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 14:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 20:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above, fails NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Chester F.C. season

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the club was playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 14:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 20:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above, fails NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finn Mikkelsen

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

Notability concerns. The only reference is the World Curling Federation database, and I can't find any coverage of this person. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NCURLING: "...A curler is presumed notable if he or she ... 2) Has participated at the World Curling Championships..." Finn Mikkelsen has participated at the 2002 World Wheelchair Curling Championship. Yes, I can't found other sources for today. -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the curling notability criteria are clearly junk. If we cannot find 3rd party coverage of someone being in a competition, than claiming it is a sign of default notability is clearly wrong, and explains why Wikipedia is burdened down by so many article that are permastubs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Andrew, ‎Allthegoldmedals, ‎A202985, TracyFleuryFan - what you can say? (about Parakev Arsenov too) -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: WP:NCURLING does not mention wheelchair curling at all, so there is no need to denegrate it. Wheelchair curling does not get the same coverage as regular curling, so if you want to make the case that this article should be deleted, then you can start there. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia:Notability mentions that just because a subject is presumed notable, it may not warrant an article if it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm all for increasing our depth of information on curling on Wikipedia, but as Earl mentioned, sometimes there isn't the same coverage. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I agree with the above comments. The wheelchair championships don't get nearly as much coverage as the men's and women's do so they are going to be less notable and have less sources about them. I love expanding the articles on curling but for this particular one I think there needs to be more than one source for it to be justifiable. TracyFleuryFan (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG nor do I see any evidence that he meets any SNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ureme (film series). Tone 19:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ureme 1

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

Non notable, nothing shows up in searches to establish notability except databases and other wikis. Tagged for notability for over a year. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've dropped a note at the Korea WP to see if they could help look for sourcing, since coverage is likely to be almost entirely in Korean and also likely harder to find since this was a series from the 80s, so pre-internet. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ureme (film series). I looked and there is nothing in English that suggests those movies have stand-alone notability. There is some content in Koraen (some google hits in books and scholarly works), however I can't read them and Korean Wikipedia article on this movie is pretty bare. Do ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ureme (film series) - per Piotrus. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ureme (film series). Tone 19:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ureme 2

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

Non notable, nothing shows up in searches to establish notability except databases and other wikis. Tagged for notability for over a year. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ureme (film series). I looked and there is nothing in English that suggests those movies have stand-alone notability. There is some content in Koraen (some google hits in books and scholarly works), however I can't read them and Korean Wikipedia article on this movie is pretty bare. Do ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ureme (film series) - per Piotrus. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ureme (film series). Tone 19:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ureme 3

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

Non notable, nothing shows up in searches to establish notability except databases and other wikis. Tagged for notability for over a year. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ureme (film series). I looked and there is nothing in English that suggests those movies have stand-alone notability. There is some content in Koraen (some google hits in books and scholarly works), however I can't read them and Korean Wikipedia article on this movie is pretty bare. Do ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ureme (film series) - per Piotrus. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ureme (film series). Tone 19:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ureme 4

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

Non notable, nothing shows up in searches to establish notability except databases and other wikis. Tagged for notability for over a year. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ureme (film series). I looked and there is nothing in English that suggests those movies have stand-alone notability. There is some content in Koraen (some google hits in books and scholarly works), however I can't read them and Korean Wikipedia article on this movie is pretty bare. Do ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Man. Why do all of these have to have their own page? Anyway, Merge to Ureme (film series) per Piotrus. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chiara Magni

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

Technical nomination because Vexations (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) tagged the article for AfD using Twinkle but did not complete the process. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable artist sourced entirely to the normal "paid package" of black hat SEO sources. Yahoo is just a press release, the others are interviews and it's pretty telling that there are no interviews in actual rs. Fails GNG, NARTIST and whatever else she claims to be. Praxidicae (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are all interviews or PR fluff, no independent sources found. --Finngall ^talk 15:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first source is published ion Yahoo.com but is actually an Accesswire press release claiming that she is among the top ten something or others in the world. Sourcing is inadequate, and much of it seems to be self-generated in one way or another (e.g. own site, medium.com). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, it's even better: The source for Acceswire is Authority Titans, who we know as Dillon Kivo (look him up) and https://authoritytitans.com/, per their FAQ say: "We can get you on major publications such as Forbes, Yahoo, MSNBC, Wikipedia, and more. We guarantee that all of our publications are very credible, trusted, sources." This is paid-for promotion by a UPE. If they aren't already, block/ban these people and delete/salt their spam. Vexations (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "she's a Impressionism Fingerpainting"? no, just no. "She's one of the fastest growing artists of our times", I don't think so. No SIGCOV in reliable sources. Fails WP:ARTIST, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:BIO. Netherzone (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no independant sources, just PR based ones. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing all four criteria of WP:ARTIST. Only reliable source is News12 which does have editorial oversight but doesn't mention any major exhibits or awards that would make her qualifications even coming close. Yahoo finance gives her one paragraph among nine other artists. Blue Riband► 15:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Riband, The news12 source says: "Information contained on this page is provided by an independent third-party content provider Frankly and this Site make no warranties or representations in connection therewith." Vexations (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-Thank you for the alert Vexations. While I did look at the references in the article I made the mistake of assuming a cable news organization would do some journalistic fact checking. I'll be more careful going forward. Blue Riband► 15:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nord Anglia International School New York

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

This K-8 school appears to have no coverage that establishes notability. The article is written in the form of an advertisement for a relatively new branch of the London Stock Exchange-listed Nord Anglia Education plc's chain of schools. The New York Times article is almost entirely about Avenues school; Nord Anglia is only briefly mentioned. Fiachra10003 (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Fiachra10003 (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches of google news and others don't really seem to turn up sources that would establish the notability of this particular branch of the school. The tone of the article is also problematic (spammy), but the lack of notability seems like an issue that would be harder to fix. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:55, 26 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 locations of the DC Universe. Tone 09:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tamaran

(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 coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Sigh. Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe. Tamaran has a mention there already, which is all it needs. Any other relevant information might also possibly be merged with Starfire (Teen Titans) Rhino131 (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of coverage in reliable third party sources, per the WP:GNG. Would accept a redirect if a target is found. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient real world coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 18:40, 26 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 09:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K. Annamalai (I.P.S)

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

Just a random IPS Officer among thousands and thousands, who left his job to join a political party as a basic low level party worker. Fails WP:NPOL and doesn't even come closer to WP:BLP1E.

The present article is a copy of a previously hijacked article of K. Annamalai who is a Member of the legislative assembly, during the start of this year [58], till a user reverted it back to its previous revision before the hijack here. The present unverified image in the article also seems like a screenshot from a youtube video which could be also violate the copyright policy.

This subject is not notable in any way to have an article on Wikipedia and the article is written like a promotion of his biography. The older versions form the hijacked page even had highly promotional content with no citations here which highly suspects of WP:PAID editng and WP:COI. I suggest to delete the article for now and wait till anything develops reason being wikipedia is not a soapbox and biographical host for every person. Thank you, King of Victory (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. King of Victory (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. King of Victory (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nominator King of Victory (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. King of Victory (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. King of Victory (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. King of Victory (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. King of Victory (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom Ab207 (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Non-notable civil servant and in general only super high-level political staffers tend to be notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems to be notable civil servant with good following from coastal districts in Karnataka. Various newspaper and media articles highlight his honest service to Indian police. It is worth noting that his transfer during service invoked protests from common citizens who referred as Singham of Karnataka.^[1]. "Singam/Singham" is recent epiphet (after 2010 blockbuster Hindi movie Singham) in India to indicate a honest police officer. Within a week of joining a political party, he was appointed as vice-president of TN BJP unit.^[2] It is advised to contribute to this article as per wikipedia norms. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Apart from saying he's "singham" and "joined BJP", there's nothing substantive, we need something other than this to establish notability per WP:BLP1E. --Ab207 (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WiseStamp

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable e-product. This article is just an advertisement for it. Page was created by WP:SPA. Normal Op (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, no citations, no WP:RS. Searching for news referencing WiseStamp fails to turn up notable articles. XVDC (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete NOt only does it fails WP:N but it's poorly written. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Opened by an LTA. See w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gomorisy. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Edlund

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

No importence,No notability. In the world lacks of musicians are there.Wikipedia is not platform for all of them.Even he elected as a member "Royal Swedish Academy of Music" is not a notability. We cant create articles all hundreds of members of this academy. (Gomorisy (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)) Gomorisy (talk) 08:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Four other language Wikipedia pages is a telltale sign of possible notability. Searching google books one sees quite a few books written by Edlund, and per this book in English (by Strimple) which has a biographical entry on Edlund, Edlund's training books were influential in the field of ear training. The appear to be many more book and scholar hits, in a variety of languages. He appears to meet NAUTHOR. Edlund was also a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Music, which is of some importance.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER. Most of the article's sources do not mention him. his work is not notable and the articles are too brief to establish notability.(Cklabert (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)) LTA Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion COMPOSER is the wrong yardstick as he is notable not for his compositions (late in his career) but for his writing on theory and training (so AUTHOR). In addition to Strimple, see the 1982 International Music Guide or White that calls Modus Novus the "standard handbook for atonal ear training in Sweden and in many other countries" or de Larminat who refers to Modus Novus and Modus Vetus as " key work in German-speaking countries". When searching I s see lots of non-English sources out there that I can't understand as easily.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per google books search. Per sources. Per WP:GNG. The nom itself is a flawed WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale with no basis in Wikipedia guidelines per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.BabbaQ (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I searched Google, ProQuest and but couldn't get valuable sources. Subject does not meet our notability standards. (Karappodiii (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)) LTA Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:20, 26 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 09:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Talia

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

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:JOURNALIST and WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Also references 1 and 3 are to non existant pages. Teraplane (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is clearly not adequate to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Konkhra

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

Fails to meet WP:NMUSIC. Very few hits on google. Albums do not appear to have been released on major labels or important indie labels. noq (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found several reliable sources: Allmusic biography, Metal Storm, Laut.de, Sputnikmusic, Metal Inside. I have also found a Blabbermouth page, but that's just about them signing to Hammerheart Records (which is a notable label). There is also a Chronicles of Chaos interview. Also found two album reviews on Metal.de.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - fairly easy to find coverage from secondary sources. Nuclear Blast is an important indie label. Blackguard 06:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What is the significance of Nuclear Blast to this article? It is not listed as one of the labels they have released on. noq (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Konkhra's debut album was released on Nuclear Blast. Blackguard 05:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as shown above such as Sputnik Music, Metal Storm, AllMusic, Chronicles of Chaos and others so passes WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmass Fakahany

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

Notability claim is borderline, and the page was likely written by one or more WP:UPEs. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His food business may be notable, but he has no notability without it, so maybe we should have an article on that business, but clearly not on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the subject is mentioned in a number of WP:RS, their notability seems to be tangential at best. Most of the sources cited are either focuses on Fakahany's businesses/awards (all of which fail Wikipedia's redlink test for notable awards) or contain WP:PRIMARY information. In addition, none of the sources seem to put forward a credible claim to show how the subject is individually different and encyclopedic notable when compared to other, similar businesspeople (WP:MILL). Couple this with the likely WP:UDP/WP:NOTPROMO activity surrounding this article and delete is point I am reaching. SamHolt6 (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me that a person who is the owner and CEO of a global company, and had previously been the COO of Merrill Lynch, would most likely be notable, although those do not alone guarantee notability. I have not yet done a WP:BEFORE search on this person. The nominator does nor mention the results of any BEFORE search. I wonder what, if anything, was found. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Two days ago, I templated the page creator with {{uw-paid1}}, asking him if he's paid or not. He hasn't replied. —Unforgettableid (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment @DESiegel: the nominator looks like habitual and his all contributions are to delete the pages. I am dumb, user:DGG is dumb who accepted the page to main space but nominator knows everything because he made 10K edits and damaged thousands of pages. With this speed only a few pages will be left. JK.Kite (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- JK.Kite The article is at best borderline acceptable as it stands, the nomination is correct in that much. If you think it should be kept, the best way is to find additional quality sources and point them out. If you think that the nominator has been abusing the AfD process, this can be reported at WP:ANI, otherwise don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per WP:Notable, WP:NPOV, WP:PAID editing is very much apparent and why hasn't this been hit with a CSD G11? ♥ Melody ♥ 21:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Melody_Concerto It was tagged with G11, and that was declined, by me, before this nomination. See the history. I stand by my view that it is not a G11. And neither WP:Notable, WP:NPOV, nor WP:PAID are valid reasons for speedy deletion. WP:PAID is not, in fact, a valid reason for deletion at all. There have been several proposals to make it one, none have achieved consensus, and in my view rightly so. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources, and will be adding more. In my view this already passews the GNG. The article currently has 2 NY Times articles, 1 Forbes (albeit by a contributor, so of less value), 1 Inc.com article, 1 Business Insider, and several others, for a current total of 20 citations. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:SIGCOV, WP:BARE, and WP:HEY, based on at least one Times article entirely about him, as well as other sources. However, it still needs a lot of work, so I would not oppose userfication. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is primarily a promotional article with little if any notabillity therein. References I checked appeared to be Primary. Whiteguru (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs discussion of the sources added by DESiegel.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need to evaluate the keep comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 07:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contrary to some of the view above, I don't see that his involvement in food business meets the threshold of notability, but his role as one of the major "perpetrators" of the financial crisis is very clear and well-documented by the Times and other sources. Fiachra10003 (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per the essay WP:THREEREFS, it'd be best to have three sources with three green checkmarks each. Dear @DESiegel: If a source doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, why mention it in an AfD discussion?

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/business/ahmass-fakahany-from-merrill-lynch-to-restaurants.html				✔ Yes
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-alatamarea-group-took-over-wall-street-2015-8	?	?		? Unknown
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/business/merrill-lynch-promotes-chief-finance-officer.html			? Unlikely.	? Unknown
https://www.inc.com/magazine/201705/sheila-marikar/task-delegate.html	?	?		✘ No
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hunteratkins/2015/11/24/the-high-quality-and-high-society-of-vaucluse-michael-whites-new-restaurant-vaucluse/#5ad0625a4c81	?	?		✘ 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}}.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A merge or a rename can be discussed at the article, but it's generally agreed that the content is notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margot (activist)

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

As much as I understand their struggle, this article does not meet our guidelines (like WP:SINGLEEVENT or WP:ANYBIO). This person is in no way encyclopedic, their article would more likely be accepted in Wikinews project. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC) Nadzik (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Polish Stonewall. If not merge, then keep until SEP or OCT when Margot's court case should start, as there are likely to be further developments. Zezen (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If she gets sentenced for decorating statutes with a rainbow flag, that will be a major scandal, if only for an attack on that activist then, not so much. Hundreds of people have been sentenced for similar things. Also, her trial might get some attention; keep this in mind folks. For sure merge, not delete. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are dozens of articles titled "Kto jest Margot?" ("Who is Margot?") in Polish (see here) on notable sites such as Fakt.pl and Wiadomosci.pl. This extensive coverage of WHO she is clearly establishes independent notability. Malick78 (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And here on France24.com it says: "Dunja Mijatovic, the human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe, the continent’s top human rights body, called for Margot’s immediate release on Saturday. Mijatovic tweeted that the activist was detained "for blocking an anti-LGBT hate van and putting rainbow flags on Warsaw monuments", saying that an order for Margot's two-month detention sends a "very chilling signal" for freedom of speech and LGBT rights in Poland." SO, with so much attention on her, clearly Margot has become worthy of coverage in her own right. Malick78 (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While there is some substanial, reliable coverage like [59], it is all WP:ONEVENT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ONEVENT says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Malick78 (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an international event on this scale has moved beyond what BLP1E was meant—to protect someone from unwanted and likely embarrassing exposure—this is opposite. And each round of media attention brings out more details of who she is, and what motivates her. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per condition 2 in WP:BLP1E. While one can argue that they are currently mainly notable for a single event, I don't see it as a given that they are likely to remain a low-profile individual. If the significant and ongoing coverage subsides, then a merge might be appropriate, but for now I'd prefer to keep the article and see how this plays out.— Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Not a single event. In fact, in Polish wikipedia the only article on the subject is the article about the organization she co-founded, pl:Stop Bzdurom, with plenty of refs to write up an enwiki page (now redirect to the "single event", which was single only as seen outside Poland. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Polish Stonewall. This article definitely does not meet Wiki guidelines, but I also think that its relevance can be disputed due to the lack of proper legal perspective, by which I mean: (1) this particular criminal offense is included in one of the most controversial and politicized articles of the Polish Criminal Code - art. 115 § 21; (2) Poland has a systematic problem with the institution of pre-trial detention; (3) Her detention in the men's prison is controversial from the perspective of human rights protection, so the case might be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights - and while any case on the docket of the ECHR is usually encyclopedic, such scenario is not even being discussed at the moment. Centyja (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Polish Stonewall - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @GizzyCatBella: This is a friendly reminder that rationale for votes is welcome, to avoid WP:JUSTAVOTE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.., thanks Piotrus, I’ll link my rationale here[60] were I commented on it already - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Polish Stonewall as per the aforementioned points regarding notability. The justification that Margot will continue to be notable or become more so seems to be WP:CRYSTALBALL. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose merger with Polish Stonewall; there is more than one event. The article should be kept or reporposed into an article on the Stop Bzdurom collective similar to the one on plwiki (pl:Stop Bzdurom). The activist/group is not just notable for the 7 August arrest. She was arrested already in 2019 due to skirmish with anti-abortion activists[61] staged dance parties near the same [62] and even staged a protest in front of the president's house called "A provocation of LGBT ideology" [63] (t · c) buidhe 23:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of your four links, only the Polish Wikipedia article mentions Margot. The other three do not. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're dealing with paywalled articles so it's not possible to read the entire contents. Anyway, I think it would make more sense to be about the group than the individual, without merging to Polish Stonewall article, which would be inappropriate. There is a lot of other coverage: [64][65]. It is not every anarchist collective that gets the prime minister to compare it to Nazis: [66][67] Not all the coverage explicitly mentions Margot or Stop Bzdurom however both are behind these actions: (t · c) buidhe 01:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since then [May 2019], Stop Bzdurom have been very busy. They organised flyering actions; distributed materials across Poland in order to help other queer people undertake their own actions; designed stickers and sent them free of charge all over the place (up to date, approx 50 thousand); publicly laughed at fascist organisations; supported queer events and projects; took part in Pride Marches; and challenged the queerphobic lies prevalent in the Polish state-run media.

In 2020, during the electoral campaign subsequently won by the PiS representative Andrzej Duda, the group organised a protest in coalition with Queer Tour to confront Duda’s and other politicians’ queerphobic rhetoric. The rally, titled “LGBT Ideology Provocation” saw a large crowd gathering in front of the Presidential Palace in Warsaw and again involved dancing as well as a number of other happenings designed to mock and confront the propaganda spread by the far right. [68]

(above unsigned comment) Buidhe, but it’s not really a group, that "Stop Bzdurom" collective is just two people team, Margot and her partner.[69] Stop Bzdurom fails notability as well, at least for now.... Think about it: what makes them notable? Because they decorated statues, assaulted some guy, one from them got arrested and then their friends protested the arrest? Or because some newspapers picked up the story about them? Newspapers pick up other similar stories[70] to keep people excited too, but we don't write about it. I appreciate Buidhe that you feel so strongly about Margot and her struggles, but seriously, she is not notable yet, not by our standards. Maybe later, if she gets like 500 years jail time for what she did or actually accomplishes something other than placing a flag on Copernicus and Jesus's statue, then yes.GizzyCatBella 🍁 01:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{u|GizzyCatBella}, I suggest that you review WP:BASIC. To quote it, People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Being covered by reliable independent newspapers is thus sufficient for notability. Plus, it has also been covered by a number of English sources that aren't newspapers, including Time, Jezebel, and The World. I don't know the details of the other article that you linked, but a brief read of the Google Translation of it suggests that it is also deserving of a Wikipedia page, assuming that it was covered in multiple independent sources. An article doesn't exist in Wikipedia, but that's because no one has made one, not because it isn't notable or isn't in English (see WP:NONENG). If some Polish speakers here want to make one, I encourage it! The exception to this is if WP:BLP1E applied. However, this isn't the case because Margot is clearly not a low-profile individual (criteria 2 of BLP1E), plus the event is significant and her role in it is well documented (criteria 3 of BLP1E). Gbear605 (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will newspapers write about Margot three months from now :) ? Ask yourself this question. She is known for a single event, that's all. By the way, the other person I linked that is kept in pre-trial is not notable either per WP:NOTNEWS Wiki-news maybe (if.. I doubt it too) but not in the main space.GizzyCatBella 🍁 02:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about what we think subjectively about importance, what matters is widespread international coverage of the person and their activities. (Also, I suspect it will be reported on what happens with the criminal case). (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s see if Margot's trial gets reported :): There will be 100’s other things newspapers will get excited about by that time. Seriously Buidhe, if she gets like 100 zł fine and let go, no paper will write about her anymore. Let that girl accomplish something actually before; she is still very young. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second @GizzyCatBella's thoughts. Margot is, admittedly, incomparable to the high-profile activists like Marsha P. Johnson during the Stonewall uprising, Sylvia Rivera, or even founding fathers of the Warsaw Gay Movement in 1980s. In addition, I think that in terms of impact on the national debate on the LGBT rights in Poland, regional organizations like Poznań's Grupa Stonewall and local activists like Bartosz Staszewski (activist from the ultraconservative city of Lublin), are much more important than Stop Bzdurom and its two leading figures. We will see, maybe Margot's activism will have a lasting impact for a long time to come, but for now - we don't know enough about Margot or her accomplishments, and for that reason this article is not encyclopedic. Centyja (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GizzyCatBella, on the nominated article's talk page (which you linked to above yourself to give your rationale), you said " if we start writing essays about every person arrested in Poland that newspapers write about, whats is going to happen to Wikipedia?" I can see this is behind many of your arguments. You realise, however, that [WP:NOTPAPER WP isn't paper?] Furthermore, regarding what you've said here, it doesn't matter if Margot is forgotten after this significant coverage in reliable sources. We don't cull articles about people from previous eras just because there is a lull in coverage. If they were notable, we consider them forever worthy of an article. Malick78 (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: covered in significant number of independent reliable sources, and WP:BLP1E does not apply because of both criteria 2 and criteria 3. Gbear605 (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is enough here to pass GNG in my opinion.★Trekker (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Gage (16th-century landowner)

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

I came across this one while closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Gage (16th-century landowner). Same reasons, no nontrivial coverage in secondary sources, also WP:NOTMEMORIAL andWP:NOTGENEALOGY. I am also nominating the following related pages, which suffer from the same issues. Some of the articles have a Career section, but those again only list trivial mentions from other sources.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. We do not keep articles on people who never did anything substantial and never received substantial coverage for their actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I make this vote with some regret as the articles are all as well researched as can be expected for fairly minor gentry of this period. They are all rather more than mere genealogy, but the subjects are all completely NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon (DC Comics)

(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 coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Sigh. Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for one, this article doesn't even have a defined topic, it covers two, completely seperate topics. Neither of these topics have been the subject of any coverage that would help pass GNG, and the article in its current state fails WP:PLOT. Since this doesn't have a defined topic, there is nowhere to redirect it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe. Avalon has a mention there already, which is all it needs. I don't see any other information in the article which should be added to that list. Rhino131 (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unsourced article that has existed for 14 years. Wikipedia should not have unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the point of list entries is to provide a centralized place for information on subjects that are notable within the fiction but unable to sustain an independent article. Right now, this article is linked in-line from two non-list articles. Morgaine le Fey (DC Comics) just name drops it with no additional context needed. Mordru mentions it twice and provides all the context needed for a reader. I don't see the need for a redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Completely unsourced fancruft. There's nothing that could be merged anywhere, and the title is not useful as a redirect. Reyk _YO! 14:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Both versions listed here are very minor fictional locations, with no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Avalon (comics) has it listed already, and its entry there can simply be used to point to the List of locations of the DC Universe if needed. Rorshacma (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - I think I wrote the first version of the page as part of my attempt to list all the planets of the DC Universe, and they have almost all been systematically deleted so why stop now, you all already deleted far more significant planets in the DCU. I'd rather just not be notified of them. Aapold (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Cairo Heliopolis

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

Article about a hotel in the Hilton chain. DEPRODed with the rationale “hotels of this size are almost always notable.” Accidentally PRODed again by me. I don’t agree that hotels with <600 beds are usually notable at all. This seems an entirely run of the mill hotel near an airport. Mccapra (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's an airport hotel. Coverage, such as it is (e.g., [71]), is promotional rubbish. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable hotel Spiderone 13:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no prejudice to recreation at later date. Likely TOOSOON. Tone 09:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Steinhardt

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

I don't see GNG or ACADEMIC demonstrated for this article. The article states that he was co-PI of the BUFFALO Hubble Space Telescope survey, but I don't think this survey is large enough to qualify WP:NACADEMIC #6. Currently an associate professor, so will perhaps have notability in the future, but not now I'm afraid. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete. Off to a very good start but not there quite yet WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. I identified only one criterion he could meet, namely C1 of WP:NACADEMIC, and I don't think he's got enough citations for that yet. His numbers are widely lifted by a work authored by fifty people or something like that. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. he does most of his work with a large group. Time will tell. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Weak delete Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. He a founding member of a centre, but not in charge of it. h-index of 22 according to Google Scholar, with 1/3 of all cites from a single paper with many authors though. Has an asteroid named after him, but not sure how significant that is. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people do not "deserve a spot on Wikipedia". We build inclusion on coverage in secondary sources. Most of the sources here are materials written by Steinhardt. Those can not be used to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The citation record is impressive for a 2010 PhD. However not quite enough here to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 right now on citability alone, given that he works in a fairly high citation field and most papers have a large number of co-authors. There does not appear to be anything else here to hang one's hat on in terms of passing WP:PROF right now. Does look like the case of WP:TOOSOON for the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He looks on-track to passing WP:PROF in the not too distant future, but I agree that the high numbers of coauthors weaken his citation record and the case for WP:PROF#C1, and that it the only likely criterion that he could pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Johann Rafelski. Not strictly the consensus, but it seems like an obvious suggestion and I'm guessing none of the people who argued to delete would have any objections. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melting Hadrons, Boiling Quarks

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

I can't find any reviews of the book online, nor any coverage that would indicate WP:GNG compatibility. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find any reviews either, except for the one in-house one (CERN) which must count as a blurb. However, there is a quite a good number of citations to the work in published studies ([72] - it's a bit Rafelski-dominated for the first page, start looking page 2 ). I'm not sure how that figures into notability for non-fiction books. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on [73] and [74], Google Scholar measures only 8 works that cite the single book in this series that themselves get over 20 citations. That shows the book seems to be respectable enough, but unless those cites include independent works that have something substantial to say about the series, it doesn't suggest notability. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of any independent coverage of the book series, which is what we would need to write a well-sourced article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As best as I can tell, the series only has one book published so far, which is a festschrift for Rolf Hagedorn [75]. Without more reviews of that collection as a book, it's hard to argue that the book is wiki-notable. Basically, it might merit a line in Hagedorn's biography (having a festschrift made in your honor is generally a pretty nice recognition), but I can't see a case for a dedicated article. XOR'easter (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Johann Rafelski: author is notable (even though he hasn't played in a professional football league game) and the book material could fit into his bio. // Timothy :: talk 06:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Ea

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

Most of the contents of Prince Ea or Richard Williams were cited by self published Youtube or Facebook,.wordpress.com links. I was unable find significant media coverage about him. One of his tittle The Man formerly Known as Prince, it directly imitating a title of one of the greatest musician Prince (musician), he was sometimes referred to as such.

Mr. Prince Ea needs more reliable sources to cite his Awards/nominations. Rinat Shakenov (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is a very notable person and a great Youtube presenter, no reason to delete.76.113.140.26 (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG per nom. Above !vote is just an example of WP:ILIKEIT. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are primarily YouTube videos, blogs, and other self-published sources. The exceptions do not establish general notability. Paisarepa (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing noteworthy. KartikeyaS (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 06:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola 6847

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

Obsolete and non-notable integrated circuit. WP:NCATALOG, WP:NDIR apply here. Mikeblas (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC) t[reply]

Keep Simply click the Google Books search link and you will find that a book was published about this chip and that it is also described in quite a few books, magazines and journals of the era. Yes, it is obsolete, but so is the Model T, Morse's telegraph and steam locomotives. Encyclopedias cover notable older technologies as well as current ones. This was significant personal computer technology 40 years ago, and is part of the history of early home computers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 6847 chip - full resolution of 256 by 192 pixels.

Keep Notable chip, which was state of the art in 1980 when used in the TRS-80 Color Computer. We should reference the material in the article, however, WP:NTEMPapplies to this chip. There are several books documenting the chip, Graphics Using the Motorola 6847 Integrated Circuit, and Microprocessor Data Book, Hackaday memorializes the obsolete chip. Lightburst (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep intel 8086 is not used in any modern appliances anymore, but it has a historical significance. Same is true for the integrated chips which have been the step-stones for modern ICs. Obsolescence doesn't mean exclusion from encyclopedia, it satisfies WP:GNG. Mamushir (talk) 14:16, 26 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 Takuma Kajiwara. There is only weak opposition to a merge, the specifics of which can be discussed at the article. There is clear consensus against deletion, however. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of people photographed by Takuma Kajiwara

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

Fails WP:LISTN. The only sources I can find that discuss this topic as a unit are wikis and mirrors that appear to be based on this article. No way this article passes the bar of WP:LISTN, even though it's bluelinks. It doesn't seem to have a real navigational purpose, either. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very weak keep. He was apparently known as a portrait photographer, so having a list of people he photographed is not so beyond the pale. But it's almost completely unsourced, so I have no way of knowing whether the claims it makes are true. I would also note that we do not have, e.g., List of people photographed by Annie Leibovitz or List of people painted by Pablo Picasso, so the implicit consensus seems to be that such a list is not encyclopedic. But I see no real argument against it from a WP:LISTN perspective, given that [t]here is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of … complex and cross-categorization lists like this one. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, we basically do have a list of people photographed by Annie Leibovitz at Annie_Leibovitz#Notable_photographs. That section could easily be split to an article on its own, and I think it'd pass WP:LISTN. Of course, Leibovitz's photos are notable for their artistic quality—some could easily have articles of their own—but the principle is similar. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to bio of this photographer, and then weigh if all these photos are notable or if we do not need a comprehensive list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did not begin this list, but I've worked on it. Kajiwara was a leading photographer of his day, and his work is Notable. The list-article does not include all his work, but only those of Notable people, which I believe is a good winnowing-down of his oeuvre. I've already marked the photos that were cited to Mrs. Johnson's book, and one photo that was cited elsewhere (to a newspaper). When I have the time, I can furnish the sources for most of the other pieces (or somebody can help me do it). You can see the page at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Takuma_Kajiwara. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Or merge. This might be a better solution. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BeenAroundAWhile, Johnpacklambert, and AleatoryPonderings: - I can see a strong case for a merge back into the photographer's article, and I'd withdraw this nomination for a merge if we all can agree that should be done. If the number of images in the article post-merge would be excessive, a Commons cat link would work, right? Hog Farm _Bacon 14:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Weak oppose. I see that BeenAroundAWhile has now added sources for nearly every entry on the list, which is pretty long. Seems no reason to move all this content back into Takuma Kajiwara if it already exists in a fairly long standalone list? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into the article on the photographer himself. Netherzone (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (again). There are other lists of photographs. I'm not sure how this one is any different. Still, I have no objection to a merge, as long as we don't lose the list. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_photographs. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: BeenAroundAWhile (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
- As for linking to Commons, those photos are mostly of non-Notable people. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively into the photographer's article (not a copy/paste move). I can't find where these have been discussed as a group, and this list seems to be based on seeing the photographer's name in credits below photos rather than any sourcing about the photos. If something hasn't been mentioned anywhere else and requires Wikipedians to compile photo credits themselves, that's going to be WP:UNDUE for a list in the bio, but the particulars of what should be included can be sorted out on the talk page there. Certainly no basis for a stand-alone list unless some great sourcing can be found. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively: I agree with Rhododendrites in all points (was going to type almost the exact thing), except that where Rhod uses the term UNDUE, I would substitute WP:SYNTH (though both work as well). Normal Op (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. @.karellian-24: please read WP:BLUDGEON -- RoySmith (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raul Cătinaș

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted through AfD back in 2014. A G4 speedy was declined "as the current article is not "sufficiently identical" to the deleted one." Not having access to the deleted article, this had to be looked at by an admin. However, there is nothing new since 2014 to indicate an increase in notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: if you check the current article history, you'll see that I refunded the version that had been deleted. That version is visible to all editors, so anyone can see the differences between then and now. --RexxS (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RexxS - I missed that in the history. If I had seen that I would have bypassed the G4, and come directly here, since my AfD rationale still stands... nothing that different between then and now, except for his attempted comeback, which imho does not really add enough notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: @RexxS: - The page was refunded by an administrator because this kickboxer is considered notable. He is a 2-time K-1 WGP Final 16 finalist. Please SEE THIS, Cătinaș was the only fighter on the card without a Wikipedia page until creation. He has also fought at the K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Tokyo Final 16. K-1 was an organisation that reunited the best heavyweights in the world. We had no rankings, but we can assume he could have been around the 10th rank so it should pass the rule "been ranked in the world top 10 by an independent publication". Liverkick ceased to exist, and Combat Press (Kickboxing) was created only some years ago. Kickboxing is covered less by media than is the UFC in the USA. I suggest some wisdom and indulgence, please. Thom Harinck, longest coach in the world and one of the best in the history of the sport, names him the "White Tyson" and "perhaps the hardest white hitter in heavyweight history". So being not just fighting in 2 K-1 finals, but also being considered an incredibly heavy hitter by Harinck could be notable.--.karellian-24 (talk) 18:28, 18 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) 02:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He wasn't notable in 2014 and he's done nothing since then to show WP notability. He doesn't meet any of the kickboxer notability criteria at WP:NKICK and I'm not seeing the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. I found interviews and routine sports coverage, but that's not enough. I did correct the article's mistaken claims that he was a two-time K-1 Grand Prix Finalist because he never actually qualified for the 8 man finals. Papaursa (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, so? He could have been easily top 10 at that point if we would have had rankings. He was a Final 16 finalist. Twice. To be a Final 16 finalist in K-1, it's huge. Some had to win qualifying tournaments plus a grand tournament in order to enter the Seoul final (Final 16). Seoul Final 16 was known as the 2nd gigantic K-1 event after the K-1 Final (Final 8) in Tokyo. Seoul is linked to the finals, being called Final 16. It should be a gesture of goodwill, since he was in top 16 twice when had no rankings. He could have been easily a top 10, passing the rules. Plus the administrator refunded this. .karellian-24 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please review your opinion, Papa! **Thom Harinck is arguably a legend coach and the longest coach ever in kickboxing, inventing this sport in Netherlands. HOW IS THAT NOT NOTABLE? That Cătinaș is a phenomenon, being known in the kickboxing world as the White Tyson.

Thom Harinck describing Cătinaș as "perhaps the hardest white hitter in heavyweight history" Sport.ro (Pro X) https://www.sport.ro/local-kombat/reactia-lui-mike-tyson-cand-a-vazut-ca-raul-catinas-are-tatuaj-cu-el-ce-a-facut-fostul-campion-de-box.html

Legendary Daniel Ghita telling "all the children want to be like Daniel Ghita and Raul Catinas" https://www.siamfightmag.com/en/others-styles-en/interviews-other-styles-en/kick-boxing-en/404-daniel-ghita-rumania

Bloody Elbow calling the win of Mighty Mo over Cătinaș in 2010 Final 16 as MOST SIGNIFICANT before the final and his quarter-final bout against Peter Aerts. https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2010/12/9/1865563/k-1-world-grand-prix-2010-preview-alistair-overeem-semmy-schilt-on

"White Tyson" aka Raul Cătinaș meets real Mike Tyson https://www.sport.ro/local-kombat/reactia-lui-mike-tyson-cand-a-vazut-ca-raul-catinas-are-tatuaj-cu-el-ce-a-facut-fostul-campion-de-box.html also covered by Evenimentul Zilei https://evz.ro/reactia-lui-mike-tyson-cand-a-vazut-ca-raul-catinas-are-tatuaj-cu.html

Largest combat sports site in the Netherlands interviewing him http://www.mixfight.nl/forum/showthread.php?92907-Interview-Raul-Catinas-(K1-Europe-GP-won-van-Leko)&s=4bfe8acd55d78b374ac54188388f4096

Fight Star Asia talks with STAR Raul Catinas https://fightsportasia.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/fsa-talks-w-superkombat-star-raul-catinas-fate-sent-me-where-im-supposed-to-be/

ORANGE Romania phone website calling him "the terrible kid of K-1" https://www.orange.ro/info/sport/altele/2949431

You must understand a thing, Catinas and many other Romanian kickboxers are good enough to win 10 ISKA titles, but they fight in own promotions. Fighting for ISKA world title is shit, they are not like WBC/WBA/IBF in boxing. In kickboxing we have GLORY, SUPERKOMBAT titles, the same as in MMA. And not even ONE Championship now is not considered at GLORY level. SUPERKOMBAT promoted with K-1 and was vanished by abbuse of office.

.karellian-24 (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep 2 reasons. At that point we had no rankings, and he would pass being top 10 heavyweight. He was qualified for the Final 16 of heavyweight, it is called the Seoul Final 16 final and is part of the finals event (Seoul and Tokyo). TWICE was qualified then we can presume he could have been top 10 at some point. SECONDLY, actually he meets WP:GNG, Thom Harinck described him as "perhaps the hardest white hitter in heavyweight history".^[1] In several articles. So he is good for the kickboxing. Good enough to have a page. Not just a gesture of goodwill, but he also meets WP:GNG. .karellian-24 (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thom Harinck is arguably a legend coach and the longest coach ever in kickboxing, inventing this sport in Netherlands. HOW IS THAT NOT NOTABLE? That Cătinaș is a phenomenon, being known in the kickboxing world as the White Tyson.

Thom Harinck describing Cătinaș as "perhaps the hardest white hitter in heavyweight history" Sport.ro (Pro X) https://www.sport.ro/local-kombat/reactia-lui-mike-tyson-cand-a-vazut-ca-raul-catinas-are-tatuaj-cu-el-ce-a-facut-fostul-campion-de-box.html

Legendary Daniel Ghita telling "all the children want to be like Daniel Ghita and Raul Catinas" https://www.siamfightmag.com/en/others-styles-en/interviews-other-styles-en/kick-boxing-en/404-daniel-ghita-rumania

Bloody Elbow calling the win of Mighty Mo over Cătinaș in 2010 Final 16 as MOST SIGNIFICANT before the final and his quarter-final bout against Peter Aerts. https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2010/12/9/1865563/k-1-world-grand-prix-2010-preview-alistair-overeem-semmy-schilt-on

"White Tyson" aka Raul Cătinaș meets real Mike Tyson https://www.sport.ro/local-kombat/reactia-lui-mike-tyson-cand-a-vazut-ca-raul-catinas-are-tatuaj-cu-el-ce-a-facut-fostul-campion-de-box.html also covered by Evenimentul Zilei https://evz.ro/reactia-lui-mike-tyson-cand-a-vazut-ca-raul-catinas-are-tatuaj-cu.html

Largest combat sports site in the Netherlands interviewing him http://www.mixfight.nl/forum/showthread.php?92907-Interview-Raul-Catinas-(K1-Europe-GP-won-van-Leko)&s=4bfe8acd55d78b374ac54188388f4096

Fight Star Asia talks with STAR Raul Catinas https://fightsportasia.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/fsa-talks-w-superkombat-star-raul-catinas-fate-sent-me-where-im-supposed-to-be/

ORANGE Romania phone website calling him "the terrible kid of K-1" https://www.orange.ro/info/sport/altele/2949431

You must understand a thing, Catinas and many other Romanian kickboxers are good enough to win 10 ISKA titles, but they fight in own promotions. Fighting for ISKA world title is shit, they are not like WBC/WBA/IBF in boxing. In kickboxing we have GLORY, SUPERKOMBAT titles, the same as in MMA. And not even ONE Championship now is not considered at GLORY level. SUPERKOMBAT promoted with K-1 and was vanished by abbuse of office.

.karellian-24 (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to attempt to respond to everything you posted, just the important points. He didn't qualify for the final 16 by winning any Grand Prix events, he was one of six of the fighters voted in by fans (at least in Seoul). An overall record of 1 win and 3 losses in Grand Prix tournaments hardly is evidence of being a world top 10 fighter. Liverkick still existed back in 2010 and 2012, so you need to show an actual ranking, not just a claim that he should have been in the top 10. You made similar erroneous claims at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khayal Dzhaniev (2nd nomination). For example, here is a link to Liverkick's January 2011 rankings [76] and you'll see Catinas is ranked 25th. In their January 2013 rankings [77] he's not even ranked. Please quit making up your own notability rules and rankings and using them at AfD discussions. In addition, interviews do not count as coverage suitable for demonstrating WP:GNG. Pick out a few references you believe show he meets WP:GNG and I'll look at them, but please don't WP:BLUDGEON. Since he doesn't meet WP:NKICK you need to show that he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Papa, I don't watch MMA/UFC often, but I do watch kickboxing. I know absolutely everything about it. 1. First of all, it's not important how he reached TWICE the Final 16 finals. If we question the others' value, 90% of the heavyweights on Wikipedia are poorer than Cătinaş. First time was through K-1, second time was through the sister of K-1 (Superkombat). 2. Secondly, the vote was about something else, about who impressed in the season if I am not wrong. I am not entirely sure though. He qualified through the K-1 ColliZion 2009 Final Elimination and the K-1 World Grand Prix 2010 in Bucharest which ended as K-1 Europe's GP (Lodz was a shitty qualifying tournament, but he failed to win it because of Zabit Samedov). Stop being so funny with the WGP tournaments of K-1, because some had World Grand Prix names but were pissed poor. Irimia got the Collizion and he never put shitty shows such as in Warsaw or Vilnius for instance. Lodz was so strong because it was organised by Local Kombat/Superkombat/Irimia. In Warsaw Daniil Sapljoshin of Estonia won. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE LEVEL? Some were not as good even as the Superkombat's WGPs. Daniil Sapljoshin would have never won a Superkombat tournament, they never had such a poor kickboxer winning an event. Sapljoshin owns a Wikipedia page and lost by KO in Romania. The other one, who won Vilnius, I mean Mindaugas Sakalauskas also lost by the same 1st ROUND KO. What the hell? Daniil Sapljoshin is on Wikipedia and Cătinaş is not. The Estonian lost to Ciobanu, now I can tell you Cătinaş would have walked through Ciobanu. Ciobanu was 2nd tier heavyweight in Romania, Cătinaş was 1st with Ghita, Adegbuyi and Morosanu. And Iftimoaie, Sora and Zmarandescu. Raul was 21 year old at that time. Of course, Kemayo's qualification different, Cătinaş qualified through a superfight after the Final Elimination. Btw, for knowledge, Eduard Irimia was organising the K-1 events for Europe. Note: Cătinaş was the 2nd youngest participated ever after Badr Hari in the K-1 finals. And what, do you count his results where? At K-1? Kickboxing record is not just abut K-1. Plus he was young. What? Ghita not a legend because he has a short career in K-1, 2/2 finals losing to Schilt and Saki at extra-round? K-1 eventually disbanded. Catinas lacked experience at K-1. Edwards if you remember well he knocked Overeem down before being KOed. Kemayo for instance was losing his fights in Local Kombat (ex-Superkombat). Superkombat was the 2nd promotion in Europe after It's Showtime (as Local Kombat), after 1st in 2012 before Ultimate Glory (and also in the world). Deleted by abuse of office. After Ultimate Glory got Andurand and Superkombat became 1st. The problem is the kickboxing rules don't equal the MMA rules. Cătinaş should be qualified, fought in K-1 and Superkombat a lot of matches. And also Superkombat should have been on Wikipedia and counted as a 1st tier promotion. Moreover we should add some easier rules for kickboxing, to equal the rules of MMA. I mean if they fought in some promotions, if they won some titles from China and Romania and maybe Enfusion. Because there is discrimination against kickboxing. Ok, I got wrong, we had 1 site of rankings Liverkick, with some rules that you must beat the fighter to rank higher. Not 5 sites.

Yes, if Liverkick wouldn't have been disappeared, Dzhaniev would have been top 10. Dzhaniev in his division is poorer than Cătinaş, but he beat Buakaw in 2015. A kickboxer who beat still prime Buakaw is not on Wikipedia? And Cătinaş is a phenomenon and very know in Europe. Combat Press have different and very subjective rankings. At Liverkick you had to beat a top 10 fighter to reach higher than him. Dzhaniev with the MMA rules would have been on Wikipedia. :) Such fighters with his talent, should be on Wikipedia. He also beat Christian Baya and others. There are much poorer fighters than Dzhaniev on Wikipedia. They should change the rules, if you beat 3 or 5 fighters with Wikipedia, you should also be on Wikipedia. Cătinaș KOed legends like Leko and Slowinski, defeated Mighty Mo at the rematch and KOed also Guidon who was Ultimate Glory finalist against Saki (lost by decision to both Saki and Schilt). SO FUNNY, because Cătinaș is knocking guys with Wikipedia! Don't you see there is a logical problem? Prime Poturak, Daniel Sam of Glory, Paula Matale, Rozenstruik etc serious opponents also. Like I said, Romania is very good at kickboxing, why would our promotions need ISKA and WKN? A Romanian promotion even now is promoting with ISKA, WKN promoted with Local Kombat/Superkombat for 15 years and Irimia's brother is working for WKN. Do you think it's hard to fight for a world title? Shitty fighters from France are "world champions", fighting in regional promotions, they don't even have money for creating own belts. And not even television. ISKA/WKN should be on the list of rules, but this is overrated, since the promotion titles have become more important in kickboxing. And not just Dzhaniev, Roman Kleibl is also gone, should have been on Wikipedia. Solid Czech heavyweight, probably in prime better than prime Hron who at some point reached top 10 because of the poorer opposition.

Cătinaş beat Leko, Slowinski, Mo, Guidon, Carter Williams, Poturak etc and he is not on Wikipedia. 90% of them by KO. Wake up Wikipedia! Dzhaniev beat a top 10 Buakaw and Christian Baya former Glory challenger and he is also not on Wikipedia. Facts! To see how wrong is this site. .karellian-24 (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Cătinaş ranked 25th when he was younger and when some heavyweights were close to retirement. Because Rico Verhoeven was 23rd for instance, Pavel Zhuravlev was 20th and after became #2 ranked light-heavyweight after Vakhitov. As you see, Cătinaş beat Mo (#24) and Guidon (#18) by KO, and with the most he couldn't meet because were older. This was before beating Mo at the rematch and Guidon! We can assume he was at least top 15 ranked. But Wikipedia rules are dumb and discriminate kickboxing compared to MMA/boxing, even a top 25 kickboxer should be on the site! Right or not? Do you know how many poor kickboxers fight for ISKA/WKN world titles? .karellian-24 (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Papaursa: Cătinaş could meet WP:GNG, because of the following sources:

Largest Romanian newspaper Gazeta Sporturilor (launched in 1924, homonym of Gazetta Dello Sport in Italy) calls him "youngest participant ever in the K-1 Final 16". Even though some sources say Badr Hari and Cătinas second, but is still ok. https://www.gsp.ro/sporturi/altele/raul-catinas-revine-in-ring-dupa-4-ani-motivul-halucinant-al-retragerii-temporare-atac-la-ghita-n-a-vrut-sa-lupte-cu-nimeni-591098.html

Legendary coach Thom Harinck describing Cătinaș as "perhaps the hardest white hitter in heavyweight history" Sport.ro (the White Mike Tyson of the kickboxing) https://www.sport.ro/local-kombat/reactia-lui-mike-tyson-cand-a-vazut-ca-raul-catinas-are-tatuaj-cu-el-ce-a-facut-fostul-campion-de-box.html

Legendary kickboxing Daniel Ghita telling "all the children want to be like Daniel Ghita and Raul Catinas" (example, model in Romania) https://www.siamfightmag.com/en/others-styles-en/interviews-other-styles-en/kick-boxing-en/404-daniel-ghita-rumania

After, Daniel Ghita and Raul Catinas engaged in a media war. Why would Ghita respond him if he would be a poor kickboxer https://www.digisport.ro/alte-sporturi/raspuns-devastator-pe-care-i-l-a-dat-daniel-ghita-lui-raul-catinas-cum-a-putut-sa-l-numeasca-553381 (most popular sports channel in Romania)

Prosport, the 2nd largest sports newspaper in Romania calls him "the terrible child of K-1" https://www.prosport.ro/alte-sporturi/raul-catinas-copilul-teribil-al-k1-ului-revine-in-ring-dupa-4-ani-ce-spune-despre-daniel-ghita-18989003

Not to mention Raul trained with the best gyms in the Netherlands, from Chakuriki Gym and Mike's Gym to ARJ Trainingen now of Eersel, Khbabez and Londt. Plus with Gustafsson at Stockholm.

.karellian-24 (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Papaursa: To see how wrong are the kickboxing rules and discriminated, how many fights do you need to have with the UFC in order to get a page? 2 fights? Cătinaș has 10 fights in the old K-1. .karellian-24 (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He has just signed for GLORY. I think a lot of fights in Glory and K-1 is enough.^[2] .karellian-24 (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My final comment, hopefully @.karellian-24: In multiple discussions, I have said that since you obviously don't like the existing notability criteria for kickboxers, you should seek to get them changed. AfD discussions are not the place, though I gave you suitable locations. You also need to quit making up your own reasons and rankings. Either show a ranking from an acceptable independent source or don't claim a fighter is top 10 just because you think he should be. The fact that he trained at some of the top Dutch gyms is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED and fighters aren't notable just because they're fighting for the Glory promotion. If these are the best independent reliable sources that show significant coverage of Catinas, then I feel even more confident about my vote. Here's my analysis of the sources you just mentioned.

The Gazeta Sporturilor is pre-fight promotional coverage and the fact that Catinas is the second youngest fighter to make the K-1 Final 16 is not an indicator of notability nor is it very in-depth coverage.

The sport.ro source is a 40 second video of Catinas talking and showing Mike Tyson kissing Catinas' tattoo of Tyson. Promotional and not significant coverage.

Ghita's comment that "all the children want to be like Daniel Ghita and Raul Catinas" is both self-promotional and only a passing mention of Catinas.

The Ghita-Catinas twitter spat was self-promotional for both as they both were trying to make comebacks. Hard to make a case that is significant, independent coverage.

The Prosport article is an interview with Catinas about him wanting to make a comeback after a 4 year retirement. Interviews don't meet WP:GNG.

So far I'm not seeing anything to show Catinas is WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- nothing has changed notability-wise since the article was deleted in 2014 so I see no problem in affirming that result. Reyk _YO! 17:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 09:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hedi Zaiem

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

Search primarily shows self published stuff and this Wikipedia article, not notability through reliable independent sources Naleksuh (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable radio and TV presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)*[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Hello In 2020, he is the first famous radio and tv presenter in Tunisia --Jhondidi123 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable adio and TV presenter. In 2020, he is the first famous radio and tv presenter in Tunisia. You can consult some colleagues from Tunisia --Jhondidi123 (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jhon, you, as the page creator, are responsible for showing notability through the presence of reliable independent sources. You simply saying he is notable is not enough, as you have somewhat done here and explicitly else. Naleksuh (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naleksuh, I added reliable independent sources. --Jhondidi123 (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:51, 20 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) 01:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources #2 and #6 are primary sources, the latter is sort of a celebrity wiki. Source #11 is a duplicate source of #1. The rest of the sources seem to be reliable. Therefore, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements by decade

AfDs for this article:

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

I created this over 8 years ago as an extension of/split from List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones, which was getting out of hand with endless chart factoids. I realize this has taken the trivia aspect to another level, has become an extraneous list of information, and that there is really not a lot of third-party sourcing in it. It was nominated once before a couple years ago with minimal discussion (including a "weak keep" from me). List of Billboard Hot Latin Songs chart achievements by decade, modeled itself after this, and was recently deleted following my nomination. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This clearly fits the bill of WP:TRIVIA and backed up by a lot of original research. Ajf773 (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content is repeated in the various decade-length lists of Billboard Hot 100 number one articles already (e.g., List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2020s, List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s). The nominator had an original intent of this being an extension of/split from List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones, and there's no doubt that article is a mess right now, but that's another story. As for sourcing in these Billboard lists, mentality appears to be pretty firm to cite just Billboard articles to back content, but Wikipedia policy strongly recommends reliable third-party sources, outside of Billboard (the primary source), and would be nice to see further backing of information from more independent references, as well as context concerning the various random statistics beyond what weight Billboard places on them. Like Drake spending 49 weeks at number one on the Hot 100 in the 2010s, or having 20 songs of his debut on that chart in the same week - exactly what is important about those statistics (aside from setting records on their premier chart)? Readers need this put into context in terms of not only Billboard, but the career of the artist(s) establishing these marks. Compare this information to what has been written about The Beatles over the many decades regarding not only their then-chart records on the Hot 100, but also how they impacted the entire music atmosphere globally in their time. So I'd be in complete agreement about the TRIVIA aspect and this sure needs to be cleaned up across the large set of Billboard-related articles. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 08:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ipsotek

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Very few third party WP:RS. Likely made and edited under violation of WP:PAID and promotional in nature. Ed talk! 01:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ed talk! 01:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2009-07 ✗ G11

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 09:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Boria

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

Non-notable mayor lacking significant notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Meatsgains: I do not think he is a mayor without relevance. In the article there is information about him, his tenure, and even accusations of corruption. He is the most notable mayor of the Venezuelan-American community (which gave him media coverage throughout his term) and therefore, different references support him. Do you think it can be expanded so as not to be deleted?--LuisZ9 (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found coverage of this politician [78] [79] [80] [81] as well as sources listed in the article which show international coverage. He is also notable for being the first mayor elected in Florida who was born in Venezuela. Z1720 (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per above sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Z1720. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 08:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of internet stock characters

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

Combination of memes/jargon based on particular kinds of people on the Internet framed as "stock characters" (a term which literally none of the sources use). Fails WP:GNG/WP:SALAT/WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 23:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP rename it List of Internet Slang, that just a redirect that was never an article. Many of these things have articles such as Karen (pejorative), etc. Dream Focus 00:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an indiscriminate list of terms that badly fails WP:LISTN. Even the title/purpose of the list is dubious. Most of the items are not "stock characters" by any normal definition, and "internet" seems to be just where the list's author first heard the term. The individual line items are real definitions of slang terms and those definitions are sourced, but the sources don't establish the notability, or even the existence, of the category. ApLundell (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Fails WP:LISTN and meets WP:WWIN / WP:INDISCRIMINATE / WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT // Timothy :: talk 02:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as (entirely, inevitably) WP:OR. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Indiscriminate collection of unrelated terms, no indication what all of these have to do with the internet, no indication what makes these "stock characters." The LGBT terms on this list have been around longer than the internet, and it would be completely inappropriate to just rename as DF suggests. The other more recently invented terms, while popularized on the internet, are not exclusive to it and remain unrelated. Karen is linked from Archetypal name, perhaps that could take a couple others but this list is just bad. Reywas92^Talk 02:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know what distinguishes an "internet" term from a mass media term or schoolyard term, in 2020. This is inherently WP:INDISCRIMINATE and represents original research of a few editors sourced to cherry-picked sources, rather than any reliable verifiable phenomenon. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internet slang: Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the individual entries are sourced, there are none that talk about this grouping as a whole, which is a failure of WP:LISTN, and none that describe them in the context of "Internet Stock Characters". Additionally, as pointed out, a number of these are terms/slangs that existed well before the internet. Overall, this is just a WP:SYNTHy mess. Rorshacma (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mostly per the others. About half of these don’t even have to do with internet terms. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:36, 26 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.

^ "Antrenorul lui Badr Hari, SOCAT de un roman: "In 45 de ani nu am vazut un alb sa dea cu pumnul atat de tare!" VIDEO cu ultimul KO" (in Romanian). Pro X. 13 July 2012.
^ GLORY ZET DOOR: Tekent weer zwaargewicht topkickbokser

[1] ttps://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2020/aug/25/former-karnataka-cadre-ips-officer-k-annamalai-to-join-bjp-on-tuesday-2187948.html

[2] ttps://www.news18.com/news/politics/k-annamalai-appointed-tamil-nadu-bjp-vice-president-2831599.html

[3] "Antrenorul lui Badr Hari, SOCAT de un roman: "In 45 de ani nu am vazut un alb sa dea cu pumnul atat de tare!" VIDEO cu ultimul KO" (in Romanian). Pro X. 13 July 2012.

[4] GLORY ZET DOOR: Tekent weer zwaargewicht topkickbokser

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]