Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 September 16 September >

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest-running U.S. primetime television series with continuing characters

[edit]
List of longest-running U.S. primetime television series with continuing characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, in my opinion, is very similar to the one I have also nominated for deletion and that it is also just a rehash of the article List of longest-running U.S. primetime television series but only with scripted programming that have continuing characters featured in it. Pahiy (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 10:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative European Research Conference

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

Non-notable academic conference. Fails WP:EVENT, WP:GNG and related guidelines. In terms of the EVENT guidelines, and in particular WP:ROUTINE, a BEFORE review suggests that this is just an otherwise run-of-the-mill academic conference, with nothing indicating that it has had any enduring historical significance, lasting relevance, or been subject of anything other than very limited coverage. In terms of GNG guidelines, I can find no news coverage to speak of in either the Irish national or relevant regional papers: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. A web search returns just the Wikipedia article, the subject's own website, and ROTM entries in conference listings and the like. All of which, I note, contain almost exactly the same text. These entries confirm that the subject exists, but do not contribute to notability. While Google Books/Scholar searches return a handful of results, these seem to just refer to papers that were perhaps presented at the conference. There is nothing which discusses the conference in its own right. Guliolopez (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 10:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drought (sport)

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

PROD removed. Article is nothing more than a dictionary-style definition of a common term (that is the only encyclopedic content--the first, poor, paragraph), with the addition of a whoooooole bunch of supposedly noteworthy occurrences. Full of OR, trivia, etc. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)The fac[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Practically unanimous in favor of keep. (non-admin closure) TL | The Legend talk 03:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cat Who Went Bananas

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

trivial reviews; a separate article is not justified DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn Pahiy (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

List of longest-running scripted U.S. primetime television series

[edit]
List of longest-running scripted U.S. primetime television series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While looking at the article for TV Guide’s 60 Greatest Cartoons, I found this article written by the same user in one of their previous accounts and I’m thinking that this article is just a rehash of the List of longest-running U.S. primetime television series with only scripted programming being featured. Thinking this should be either moved to a draft or even the likely option of deletion. Pahiy (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nominator's argument is that this list is an unnecessary copy of the larger one. My argument for Keep is that this list doesn't actually bear much resemblance to the larger one. The Simpsons is #1 on this list; it's #27 on the main list. Then you have to go down to #50 before you get to the second one. When people ask, "What's the longest-running American primetime shows?" they're often thinking about the scripted series — The Simpsons, Law & Order and Gunsmoke, rather than Hallmark Hall of Fame, Walt Disney Presents and 60 Minutes. It is difficult for a reader to pull this information out of the larger list — you have to know at a glance whether The Challenge is scripted or unscripted. Therefore, this is not an unnecessary rehash. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Toughpigs's reasoning. This list is a useful navigational aid to find what you are looking for. Dream Focus 04:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by nominator Withdrawing the article from deletion, I got confused with another article that the Wikipedia user created that is a List of longest-running U.S. primetime television series with continuing characters so I'm deciding to close this deletion nomination for the article. Pahiy (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Charlotte County Public Schools. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punta Gorda Middle School

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES tells us we don't have articles on middle schools unless there is something exceptional about it. Being destroyed by an act of God and rebuilt is a WP:1E event and speaks little, if at all, to notability. Between fires, floods, tornadoes and hurricanes, there are several US schools destroyed by acts of God annually. The only secondary sources are about the aftermath of the hurricane or transactional. Also,  all the secondary sources are local, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not really sure what has changed about this article since it was first nominated for deletion, other than information has just recently been removed (by someone who wants to delete the article) that should have been updated rather than removed. The whole middle schools get deleted and high schools get kept bit has been a quite controversial one, since it doesn't have a firm basis in WP:GNG, which states that there needs to be significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The reason for keeping high schools and deleting middle schools is that a lot of middle schools don't have the kind of coverage this one does. The problem with merging the material to the district article or to the Hurricane Charley article is that we would really be giving PGMS undue attention in either of those articles to include all of the encyclopedic information currently in the PGMS article in one of them. AfD is not WP:Cleanup. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 23:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Charlotte County Public Schools This came on my radar thanks to the trainwreck that was the Punta Gorda bus fight AfD, and I was ready to bring this to AfD myself. It's an average middle school (and middle schools go through hurricanes and get rebuilt like other schools), and though I'm sure the editor above is really proud of this article...they are also WP:INVOLVED (not in the admin sense) as someone who is from that school district (their userpage has that information, so there is NO outing involved here) and as one of their early Wiki creations. The text involved is a minor school official's WP:RESUME point, school stats that are fifteen years out of date, a mascot that 98% of the time, students never think about because middle school sports are never really competitive, and bog-standard information about how the new building is built to stronger hurricane codes (it would be unusual if they thumbed their nose at FEMA and built a shoddy structure). Nate • (chatter) 00:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m going to clarify that I am an alumnus of that school, but not otherwise affiliated with it; I work for Sarasota County Public Schools, not Charlotte County, and I was in high school when I wrote the article. I lean on the inclusionist side, but I’m curious what has changed about the notability guidelines that this article no longer meets GNG? I’m just curious, not angry or anything. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 01:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment As mentioned by JfI, SCHOOLOUTCOMES has really tightened up since 2007 to where only high school and high school equivalents get keeps, and middle schools are usually considered redirects with elementary schools due to the muddled state of American education (some districts have them in elementary/middle combos, some alone, some use the different junior high school concept and push it to tenth grade, and there's small cases where 4K-8 is elementary education). There's usually nothing outstanding about middle schools that justifies an article broadly here. Nate • (chatter) 04:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Charlotte County Public Schools. As mentioned by John from Idegon this is really a WP:1E matter with no significant ongoing notability. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We require actual substantial coverage to show notability for a school that is not at least a high school, the coverage here is just routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - As nominator, I'm fine with the redirect. We're here because my BOLD redirect to the district was reverted. A note for the article's creator: as of an RfC about 18 months ago, the automatic notability for high schools ended. We're not mass deleting existing articles routinely, but several high school articles have been deleted since. New school articles are now required to meet GNG. This article has never met GNG, as most of the sources are about the 1E event. It's great info to include in a notable article, and indeed it should be covered in the history section of the school district article. I'm all in favor of a merge of this info, along with a redirect of this article. John from Idegon (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Charlotte County Public Schools: per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES   // Timothy :: talk  00:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – bradv🍁 05:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Wendell

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

This pastor doesn't seem notable enough to pass WP:NBIO. Since out of the four sources in the article, two of them are primary, one is a local newspaper, and the other is an obituary. None of which works for notability. Also, the introduction is heavily COPYVIOed from this website. Once you get rid of that, the only things left about him are that he was accused of something and died. So, this article fails WP:NBIO and probably also WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Master thesis' don't work for notability because they are original research. That aside, I don't think two books about Charles Taze Russell, which aren't about him and probably only mention him in passing in regards to Charles Taze Russell attending one of his presentations (since that seems to be only connection they have to each other) do either. People are named dropped in books about other people all the time. There has to be more then that for them to be notable though. Including in-depth coverage. Which books about other people don't usually provide. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding using theses: Not quite. The actual policy details are found here: WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I haven't looked into whether the thesis made waves, but at the very least it could be added as an external link to improve the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to assume, assume that, as Wendell was a major influence on Taze Russell, that Wendl will be mentioned more than in passing in biographies of Taze Russell. I am wondering if Adamant1 has ever read a book-length biography--most biographies have in-depth information about other people, excepting perhaps picture book biographies for children. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is with the cavate that we should be careful about them. As they are sort of original research and it's much better if they are published in a journal where they get reviewed before being published. Although, I would be fine with it being used as an external link. Since the bar is kind of lower for them. As far as the biographies go, it's pretty irrelevant if I have read a lot of them or not (I have), because like you say in this particular case it would be an assumption either way anyway and AfDs are based on the facts, not personal assumptions of what a biography might contain because I've read some or whatever. That said, with the biographies I have read there wasn't usually in-depth details about other people in them. Except when the person that the biography was about had a close relationship to the person or at least was extremely important to their life (but even then really not). Which really isn't the case here. Since there's no indication Jonas Wendell and Charles Taze Russell were friends or had any kind of relationship what-so-ever, and all the article says is that attendance at Jonas Wendell's presentation "restored Charles Taze Russell's faith in the Bible." Which is a really vague and general statement, that doesn't actually connect the two in any meaningful way. Generally, I highly doubt there would be a long piece on someone who "restored" a persons faith in their biography. Honestly, I don't think it's very encyclopedic either. Plus, it's the defining of a passing mention. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, theses and dissertations go through an academic review process called IRB and are typically published in Proquest and often elsewhere. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, not all IRBs are equal and the "reviews" they do are of varying quality. Which is why Wikipedia prefers thesis that are printed in peer reviewed journals. Also, not all thesis are published on ProQuest or "elsewhere." Obviously some are, but the one we are talking about here isn't. It was "published" on the website of Seventh-day Adventist university college's library that the person who write attended. Which isn't ProQuest or anything like it. Id imagine their IRB is on the lower end to. Sure, we could have a discussion about extremely general, mealy mouthed things that are not relevent to the AfD though like "things are printed in differented places" and "people review things." As if both aren't extremely obvious or like anyone here was arguing that those things weren't the case. Adamant1 (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you know that your assumptions about the quality of their thesis review process in 1947 do not signify. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BTW, I don't think that the sources provided by ToughPigs about his "arrest" should be included in this or the article. As the source about it says "No evidence of impropriety was ever produced." Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. I know that if you take that and the obituary stuff, which is pretty run of the mill, out of the article that nothing is really left though, but I still it's inappropriate to include it or use it for notability. Even there was a "cool nickname" attached to him being accused of crap. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Associated Press is not a tabloid; it is considered "generally reliable" according to the reliable sources list. Not sure what you mean about a nickname, but no matter. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure me saying Wikipedia isn't a tabloid equates to "The Associated Press is a tabloid," but whatever you say. Last time I checked WP:NOTNEWS doesn't discriminate on what source the "news" is coming from and I'm pretty sure someone being accused of something, which had zero evidence and never went anywhere (even according to the Wikipedia article), would qualify under the whole ""Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" thing. Not to mention WP:SUSTAINED. I know certain people are a lot more lose with the guidelines then others though. As far as the nickname thing goes, ToughPigs said "the Wheeling Daily Intelligencer. The Pittsburgh Commercial has more information about the incident, which they call "the Edinboro Sensation"." 100% I would call a newspaper calling someone being accused of something, that again didn't go anywhere and that there was zero evidence of, the Edinboro "Sensation" rather sensationalist and tabloidlish. It would also be on Wikipedia's end to include it. Least of which because last I checked it's against covering accusations and people being arrested for things. Unless it's extremely notable and has sustained coverage. Which this wasn't and didn't have. Maybe you and ToughPigs are cool with Wikipedia including that kind of thing and using it for notability, but I'm not and I don't think Wikipedia is either. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Goodgame

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

Some coverage, but doesn't seem to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Has had some roles in the West End, but unclear the roles are significant enough for notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting for a week so that Atlantic306 can present the sources mentioned earlier, in the hope it helps consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After extended time for discussion, there is a narrow but definite consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 02:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Izabella Nilsson Jarvandi

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

I wish to nominate the page for Izabella Nilsson Jarvandi for deletion since I do not think it has any relevance. The given sources is monstly easily identified identifiable as tabloid and/or POV sources for right wing opinions. I have looked for sources without finding any from credible sources, and I even done a quick validation of the given sources and found them sadly lacking. The need for sources tag has been on the article for the better part of a year without anyone editing it adding any that is credible. To me it looks like this is just a page created to try to create an artificial sense of relevance to a person that is not relevant. --Grape (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm from Sweden and I can't say I recognize a single one of these sources as noteworthy, and they certainly don't seem reliable. The article notes that she has "7200 followers on Twitter" which doesn't exactly inspire much confidence that she's well known or has had any impact.★Trekker (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian press seems to care, according to the BBC. E.g. the Italian edition of [Vice Media] and the Italian edition of Huffington Post. Does Greta even know this girl is her so-called nemesis? If I called myself the anti-Miley Cyrus would anyone care? A German reporter dissects it. I won’t try to mine the Polish language references because my Polish is See Spot Run rudimentary (apparently Jarvandi opines about Poland’s anti-refugee policy?). I’ve also seen things in French and Dutch. If her claim to fame is latching on to Greta’s, it’s working, I guess. I just find myself perplexed as to what exactly she’s mad about. Trillfendi (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To me the sources seem to be more about Greta, and the phenomenon of people who are upset at the attention she has recived. This girl (or her supporters) seem to be trying desperately to be noticed by association. Like I said above, I think its pretty telling that this Swedish girl has had essentially zero coverage in any Swedish news whatsoever, no one here has ever heard about her and her calim to fame is "7000 Twitter followers" yet tabloids in other countries seem to have tried to make a big deal out of it.★Trekker (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned they’re not fighting the same fight. They just happen to be born 3 days apart so naturally people want to extrapolate them. A newspaper would call this a “study in contrasts”. Greta’s fervor doesn’t grant notability to anybody but herself and her movement—not to Naomi Seibt either. (Nobody cares about trivium of her Twitter follower count and that sentence can easily be discarded.) It only adds to the irony of Jarvandi’s subject that her own country doesn’t pay much attention her, but others do as BBC referred to Il Fatto Quotidiano. And by Wikipedia’s standards, that’s good enough, unfortunately. Trillfendi (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I thought I had heard of this antithesis of Thunberg. But it must have been someone else. Because when searching (mainstream) media outlets in the neighboring country - coverage of a well-known figure would have surely spilled over the border - the result was 0 hits. Not a single one. There are some Italian ones though, but are they more than blogs? Geschichte (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most, like [12] are blogs or something of that kind. There are mentions of Jarvandi in some books on climate, but there are probably hundreds of people mentioned, such mentions do not provide notability. I can not find a single high-quality media that wrote an article on Jarvandi. Wikisaurus (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete creating articles on minors should follow having strong sources, which we do not have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think consensus is on a knife-edge here. It would be helpful if somebody could take the sources suggested by those advocating "keep", and use them in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 10:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margherita Lambertini

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

She got a few interviews as a human-interest subject as a "front-line worker" during the COVID pandemic, but that by itself does not seem to make the subject notable. All the coverage is the same: "This image shows Lambertini exhausted due to Covid, Lambertini also has a child with cystic fibrosis". The coverage is from a span of two weeks and appears to originate as a fundraising promotion by the Cystic Fibrosis Research Foundation ("Margherita is the protagonist of a new fundraising campaign promoted by the Cystic Fibrosis Research Foundation, here is the info on the campaign and on how to donate." from the Vanity Fair Italy coverage) – Thjarkur (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close. Beijing bikini is (and always has been) a redirect; will list at WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing bikini

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

Beijing bikini is summer street attire among some older Beijing men. Hardly "Chinese culture". Also, Beijing bikini deserves its own article, not a redirect. Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.  JGHowes  talk 22:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AdventHealth Ocala

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

This hospital doesn't seem notable. The article only cites a single primary source and I was unable to multiple in-depth reliable sources about it in a WP:BEFORE. There was hardly even anything trivial about it. So, this fails both WP:GNG and WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations. Djflem (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to dignify the question with an answer, except to say if you have multiple in-depth reliable sources about the hospital under its old names feel free to provide them. That's what people usually do in AfDs instead of asking superfluous questions.
Sorry, I meant nothing bad by it. It's just when a hospital gets acquired by a network - the materials that made it notable or more verifiable were its origin history when it was perhaps more directly contributed with the community. I'm just speaking from personal experience from creating hospital articles. – The Grid (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I didn't think you did. I was just thinking you might have been able to find some sources have been sources I missed. I totally agree with you about it though. It seems like hospitals switch owners and names quit a lot. Which doesn't help with finding reliable sources about them. It seems like Google gives pretty different results for different people sometimes to. That doesn't help either. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1 I just added some sources with what I've found so far. Removed the promo material as well. – The Grid (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Thanks. I guess we will see if they are up the standards of WP:NORG or not, but at least you added some. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just adding vote after mutual discussion above with Adamant1. I think my edits to the page would be considered part of WP:HEY but I'm really neutral about the outcome here. – The Grid (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My goodness, this hospital is nearly three times the average size of an American hospital, and it's a Level 2 trauma center – the only trauma center in a three-county area – but we're just going to say that it doesn't "seem" notable and try to delete the article? Because nobody ever writes anything about large hospitals? Or maybe the nom thinks that hospitals in general aren't notable, since he's been regularly nominating articles about hospitals for deletion (very few of which close with deletion)? Hint: When we're talking about a modern community hospital in the developed world, and you can't find multiple, in-depth sources for it, then problem is in your search methods, not with the notability of the hospital. And for reference, a Critical Access Hospital in the US is fewer than 25 beds, and those are notable, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. I just added three sources to the article, including information about the original building and where the money went when this city-owned hospital was leased to a private organizations. It wasn't hard. The only thing I did was look at the nearest daily newspaper and put the old name of the hospital into Google Books. I think it would be easy to do more if I wanted to spend any time on this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean, there is a basic premise underlining Wikipedia that people have to write about something for there to be an article about it. It is an encyclopedia after all. Not a business directory. Excuse me for not treating it like though. That aside, quite a lot of the articles I nominate get deleted and a lot of times when they don't its mostly because you, the ARS goons, and other people like you who think this is a phonebook and that there shouldn't be any inclusion criteria at all come along and steam role things by spouting nonsense and attacking nominators. Which isn't on me. Maybe I'd be more inclined to question my nomination record if they didn't involve so many utterly garbage keep rationales. I'm not really that about it though when most of the people who vote keep in the articles I nominate are doing so based on trash reasons like that I only nominated the article to target them because they edited it once 8 years ago. Considering things like that there's zero reason at this point that any of the people in your keep crowd should be taken seriously about anything. I don't see any of you criticizing your fellow keep voters who have legitimately less then less than stellar records either, nor do I because I think it's an extremely weak rhetorical method. That said though, I'd love to see you guys do it just for the sake of consistency. Get back to me when you've kicked everyone out of the Article Rescue Squad who has a less then 50% keep record (my delete record is way above that) or whatever. Then maybe I'll care about what you guys are saying. Until then though, I don't and I won't hold my breath about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure: people have to write something about for there to be an article. But journalists actually do write about hospitals, so that's not a problem. If you think that I'm one of the "ARS goons", then I'll point out that I substantially strengthened NCORP a few years ago. All those complaints about the unreasonableness of AUD for small businesses and local non-profits are complaints about what I wrote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think your one of the "ARS goons." Which is why I added there was the comma. I still think your a little more lose with the guidelines and quick to judge things then is helpful or productive sometimes though. That's all. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. BTW, I'd love to see the people, like Ritchie333 and others, who chided me for making things personal do the same thing to WhatamIdoing. Ten bucks says it never happens though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm sick of having to repeat over and over to people like you and him that local newspaper articles about run of the mill crap like renovations or letters to the editor aren't usable sources for notability. It should be pretty obvious at this point that they aren't. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except they are, and that's why these nominations usually close as keep. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No they aren't. You know what WP:NORG says about trivial coverage and it's completely ridiculous to claim a letter to the editor is a reliable source. No where does it say in any guideline that they are and there's rules about local sources. Including that using the same one a bunch of times like WhatamIdoing did here doesn't count as multiple sources. Anyway, most of "these" nominations don't get closed as keep. Just the ones you and the other people who seem to care less about the guidelines are involved in. Plenty of my nominations have resulted in delete though. It's just that you and the other inclusion at all cost people don't ever have any better arguments, let alone any guideline based ones, then to attack nominators. Even Catfurball who mainly edits Seventh-day Advantist articles and probably has a connection to them said this isn't notable enough to keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:20, 21 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 10:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glade, California

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

This is difficult to search for, but I found nothing beyond what is listed in the article, and since the source is Durham and it's indicated as a post office, bets are that that's all there was. Mangoe (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 16 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 10:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loeffler, Missouri

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

It was a post office, not a town. See State Historical Society, old county history, and the 2015 topo, which has Loeffler next to a square labeled "PO". Other recent topos don't include Loeffler. Search for GNG coverage failed. As an isolated post office, it fails WP:GEOLAND, it also fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm Bacon 21:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 21:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 21:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 10:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver

[edit]
Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for substantially the same reasons I put forward in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toronto Real Estate Board, deleting another article from the same editor: "Non-notable local (not even national or provincial) industry group of real estate agents. no independent coverage or other indication of notability. Despite the word 'Board' in its title, it is not a government agency. The article is mostly used as a vehicle to promote the organization and needs to be constantly policed to remove hype and unsupported claims." TJRC (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Other than listings of homes, flats, etc., for sale, no results come up in reliable, independent, secondary sources. No general notability. If the article author was authentic, at least a substantiated history of this board could have been supplied. Alas, we get this page. $1.5 million for a detached house in Greater Vancouver? My, my, I shouldn't wonder. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:57, 16 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.  JGHowes  talk 22:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miami New Drama

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article has twice been declined at AfC [13] [14] and moved to draft when created in mainspace. [15]. The latest creation in mainspace is substantially the same as the previous copy moved to draft. John B123 (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited and coverage of the productions does not bestow notability on the production company any more than it would bestow notability on the director or the theatre. The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP and there isn't a single reference that provides in-depth information on the company as per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing 14:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 21:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mohanabhil, just to point out, "founded by notable founders" is not a reason to keep - notability is not inherited. Also, "received extensive coverage" is vague at best. There are a number of references in the article, all based on statements/interviews with the founders and this fails WP:ORGIND as this is not considered "Independent Content". Do you have a specific reference in mind that you believe meets the criteria for notability? If so, please post a link here. HighKing 10:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a notable and important theater company and has a good amount of coverage, especially for a company that's only 4 years old. It has even been on PBS: [16]. Coverage will only increase as time goes on. Softlavender (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've already noted in my !vote above that not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and yet not only has not one single Keep !voter put forward any rebuttals, two more Keep !voters have appeared who also either don't understand the criteria in NCORP, or who perhaps foolishly believe that the closing admin will simply count !votes. Just FYI, this isn't a !vote counting exercise. If you believe a reference exists that meets the criteria, post the link here so others can comment. For example, the PBS link posted above fails the criteria - it is an interview with a person connected with the company and provides zero information on the company itself since the discussion is about the production/play, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing 17:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - notability of the theatre is not inherited to the production company. 1292simon (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here are some sample articles that show this theater company easily meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. These articles are about the theater company, not about the theater. A theater is just an otherwise empty building (and the Colony Theater hosts other arts, not just Miami New Drama). The significant coverage in these articles is about Miami New Drama, not about (or in a couple of cases not just about) the productions. Softlavender (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Softlavender, nope. References must meet both the WP:CORPDEPTH *and* the WP:ORGIND sections of WP:NCORP (at the same time). There also isn't a need to provide 9 references (that's refbombing) as you could have simply posted what you consider to be the best 3 (especially as there's nothing new here - they're already all in the article). I'll comment briefly on each one below:
      • This from American Theatre is already in the article and you linked to it above twice in your list. I'll spend more time explaining why this reference fails the criteria for establishing notability. The article starts by saying how the theatre was only steps from a large BLM protest and then quotes the artistic director on the issue. There is zero in-depth information on the company other than one sentence which states Founded by playwright and director Hausmann and playwright/director Moisés Kaufman, Miami New Drama is a nonprofit professional theatre company committed to artistic excellence and groundbreaking work unique to the diverse city of Miami, with a vision of theatre as a powerful form of social engagement. You'll find minor variations of this sentence in hundreds of similar "articles" on this company. This is not in-depth information but a generic statement. The article then continues with a narrative switching between quotations from people involved with the company and then essentially framing the comment into the narritive. This is the epitome of churnalism and its essentially PR. This reference fails WP:NCORP for the lack of any in-depth details on the company and fails WP:ORGIND for the lack of any "Independent Content" on the company.
      • This from the Miami Herald is already in the article. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH, only mentions-in-passing. It fails WP:ORGIND as the information on the company has clearly been provided by the company.
      • This from Miama New Times is entirely based on an announcement by the City of Miami Beach (it says it in the article). Peppered with quotes from involved people, nothing original. Fails WP:ORGIND.
      • This from Broadway World is based on two pieces of news - the second is based on an announcement by the Knight Foundation although it isn't clear on where to attribute the news about staying in the same venue for the next 5 years. It's news but there's no attributed journalist (just "the newsdesk") but more importantly there is no Independent Content as per WP:ORGIND. It's the same formula of quotations and text framing the quotes into the narritive.
      • This from Times of Israel is based on an interview with a company executive and provides detail on his past and life journet. There is zero "Independent Content" concerning the company, fails WP:ORGIND
      • This from Theater Mania is entirely based on an interview, no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
      • This second from American Theatre has zero in-depth information on the company (other than what plays are current and the obligatory quotation from the company executive), fails WP:CORPDEPTH
      • This from NBC News is mainly about the company executive and only mentions the company in passing with zero in-depth information. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
      • In my opinion, there's already plenty said about this company in the article on Michel Hausmann and it this company is not notable in its own right. Sure, it exists and is putting on great theatre, but if it was really notable, somebody other than local newspapers or news channels would have written about it. HighKing 21:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • HighKing, at this point you are making up rules, not adequately reading the articles (try doing Control F miami new drama on each), and just doubling down on your initial negativity. I can't even take you seriously at this point, especially when you say "there's already plenty said about this company in the article on Michel Hausmann and it this company is not notable in its own right". Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Softlavender, I think you'll find that I pretty much only participate in AfDs for organizations and not for other topics. Here's stats on the latest 200 AfD's I've participated in. So telling me that I'm "making up rules" is pretty lame and nonsensical considering that my stats show my !vote agrees with consensus over 87% of the time whereas your stats show agreement only 68% of the time. So I'd guess I've probably a more in-depth understanding of this stuff that you do. I've tried to explain to you why exactly the references fail the criteria for establishing notability. If you prefer to disagree, fine, but this isn't a !vote counting exercise and the closing admin will weigh the arguments. So far, I've responded to every reference and rather than you pointing out which parts of the guidelines you think I'm misinterpreting, or why, you've resorted to name calling. Doesn't look great. HighKing 16:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Concurring with Softlavender and Ssilvers. I don't think an outfit for which NewsBank finds hundreds of mentions – in Spanish as well as English – can be dismissed as not notable. Tim riley talk 21:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "hundreds of 'mentions'" isn't one of the criteria. You only need a minimum of two which meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing
  • OK, so you can't (or won't) post anything other than a vague wave in the general direction of an archive. I've already looked at hundreds of articles mentioning "Miami New Drama" and none meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. I've asked for specific references and not a single Keep !voter can post one other than using WP:ASSERTN excuses. Fine. I'm happy to leave this to a closing admin. I'll keep an eye and if anyone posts an actual link to something concrete, I'll take a look. Not trying to argue, was hoping to engage constructively but I guess that takes two. HighKing 20:09, 21 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. Default to keep. – bradv🍁 05:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kavya Suresh

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

Non-notable actress that I created. Only 2 sources exist. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she has starred as major roles in two films Thenkashikattu and Thirumanam (2019 film), so she may meets WP:NACTOR#1? . VocalIndia (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my opinion to Keep per WP:NACTOR. VocalIndia (talk)|
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Even disregarding all the suspicious votes, there is not enough support here for deletion. – bradv🍁 05:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BreakTudo Awards

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

Related to BreakTudo website. Also not relevant. Article also deleted in other languages, as in the native version.

PS: This proposal extends to related articles. J talk 13:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I vote to keep this article on Wikipedia. I am a publisher on Brazilian Wikipedia and in fact the article does not exist on wikipedia in Portuguese, however, I noticed that there is a plot in Brazilian wikipedia to block the article and this same plot has been working to eliminate this page here on wikipedia in English. This editor who marked the elimination page is constantly blocked on the Portuguese wikipedia due to vandalism. Today, he did several vandalism actions on the pages of Anitta, Pabllo Vittar and other Brazilian artists, he is not a reliable editor. Regarding the relevance of the Brazilian award, I can say as a Brazilian, that the award is very important in the country. The event has already been featured in several major Brazilian portals such as Jornal Extra from the Globo group and Todateen of Uol magazine and several other portals, just search Google, outside the country, the award also has very expressive media coverage in several languages, having already been featured in vehicles with CNN, Yahoo, RTV 21, MSN, Telegrafi, Jawa Pos, Allkpop, among many others. The conspiracy charge is because this same group of Brazilian wikipedists came together to eliminate the page in Spanish, using false justifications. In the same Brazilian wikipedia, there are pages for awards such as Capricho Awards, Prêmio Contigo Online and Prêmio Quem Online, which are mere online polls and which receive coverage only in the vehicle that promotes them, differently from the BreakTudo Awards that today are really big in the country. I ask the attention of the wikipedists English natives for this fact this group of Brazilian wikipedists is acting, in Brazil they are the same ones that bar influencers like Leo Picon and Nah Cardoso. The award is publicized by several Brazilian artists and nothing that is not really relevant would get such coverage. It is clear that it is an act of vandalism and boycott, something that harms Brazilian artists, who struggle for recognition in the world of music. SHE Pabllo Vittar (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, the fact that the editor who nominated this article for deletion was blocked on pt.WP doesn't matter here. Second, your accusations against him are personal attacks which can result in sactions against you. I ask you to, either, prove your accusations with diffs or strike your remarks. Third, this article was deleted on pt.WP for the same reason they are being deleted him, because it's a brazen attempt to use the WP as means for promotion. Fourth, none of the refs on the article are reliable, indepent or cover the subject in depth. Fifth, there are no "plot" here. The only plot here is a company trying to use WP for propaganda.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 22:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a Lusophone's sysop and CheckUser. I attest that the BreakTudo Awards theme was a constant target of puppets, abusing recreations disrespecting the community's decision. So I am not surprised to see new accounts being created to defend maintenance. About the award, this is more media than notorious. Therefore, there will obviously be numerous sources addressing the topic. In contrast, the overwhelming part of the sources comes down to rubbish from entertainment portals and many publish paid content. Another part of the sources are "lists" of nominees/winners or report a particular celebrity competing. These, by the way, cover more personality than the prize.
    A brief analysis of some of the sources cited here in the discussion:
    • Observatório de Música: it belongs to a "network" of entertainment sites, they publish advertisements and make "news" based on posts from Instagram and Twitter, as appears to be the case since it quotes a tweet.
    • Extra: blog hosted on the domain, passes content paid naturally.
    • Blastingnews: collaborative
    • TodaTeen: says that Manu Gavassi was nominated, talks more about the singer than about the award.
    • Click Paraná: advertising, see "Por Assessoria"
    • Blogue
    • Countless sources that only speak of the nominee
    • CNN: mention, reports that the group won the award and continues talking about the group.
    • Yahoo: collaborative base fan transfer.
  • Finally, there is no first-rate source in Brazilian journalism that supports any importance of the award. Examples: Folha SP, Estado de SP, G1, Gazeta and Zero Hora. The award is only mentioned in worthless entertainment portals. Some mentions there and here, some repercussions about nominees and winners... and is that significant coverage from reliable sources? Do not. It has already been eliminated in Portuguese, Spanish and Korean and everything is part of a "saga", according to the editor "SHE Pabllo Vittar". Honestly, you need to have a lower reasoning ability to discuss issues that already begin in this way. Edmond Dantès d'un message? 12:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of keep !votes from suspiciously new users, would benefit from further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: There are reliable sources that mention this award. UOL's Observatório da Música , Globo's Extra and UOL's Toda Teen. Extra is a major news source, owned by the giant Globo. Toda Teen and Observatório da Música are maintained by UOL, a big news sources on the internet. I don't know if that should be enough to keep the article, and I don't know if they prove the award is notorious enough, so that's why I won't vote. But there are reliable sources that talk about it, no doubt. Mateussf (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The coverage from trusted sources is quite significant, and moreover the tabloids usually talk more about the artist than about the award itself, it is normal. The award is notorious in Brazil, this is clear. I am Brazilian and a fan of pop culture, I can speak properly about the notoriety of the awards. Predofarofa (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: It is difficult to start a clean discussion when the page continues to be invaded by suspicious accounts. J talk 04:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: On the 19th of this month I was editing the Maisa Silva page and there I ended up on the BreakTudo Awards page, I saw that it was marked for elimination by consensus and I decided to vote for keeping it. Since I believe this award is indeed notorious to be maintained in the project. I didn't get any message to cast my vote here, I'm sorry to be accused of that. I barely use Facebook, just for the record. My vote is not part of meat puppetry. A user above wants to maintain his point of view on the discussion saying that this is not notorious, I understand that he wants this, but making this type of accusation to me is very disrespectful. My vote remains "keep" per WP:GNG. Predofarofa (talk) 01:43, 24 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 10:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Lyon

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

The article fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per SNOW. (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season

[edit]
Timeline of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Isn't this just a copy of the main article? I don't see any need to have this when we already have a season summary in the main article. CodingCyclone (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoLGS: Well stated; it appears that the editor is not aware of how many TLs there are or of their purpose, not to mention how many are B-class or Featured List articles, and jumped from "why does this page exist" to "get rid of it" without first seeking understanding.Drdpw (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sappy (EP). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sayonara (Red velvet song)

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

The song does not appear to have charted, therefore not meeting WP:NSONG. I also cannot find significant discussion of the song in mutliple reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 19:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 19:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 19:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 10:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ebb, Missouri

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

State historical society calls it "Ebb Post Office", suggesting it's just a post office. Not on the 1937 topo. The only small-scale topo this appears on is 2011, where it's marked as "Ebb Post Office". Google Maps flips out when I try to search for this place, as it apparently has no idea where this is. Everything calls this a post office. Nothing besides GNIS even suggests this was a community. Hog Farm Bacon 19:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2021 Summer World University Games

[edit]
Football at the 2021 Summer World University Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a hoax as the 2021 Summer World University Games will not have a football tournament. Spiderone 18:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Minecraft. There is a lot of discussion here, but the general consensus is that the topic is relevant (though people differ by how much), and may be notable. However, there is more weight that independent notability has not been clearly demonstrated, so a redirect is merited. If there's content that's worth merging, it can be added from the history. I'd recommend putting a recreation through AFC if any user feels they can demonstrate stand alone notability in reliable sources. I would be happy to move this content to the draftspace/userspace upon request (though it isn't deleted, so anyone can do so on their own initiative). Eddie891 Talk Work 13:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redstone (Minecraft)

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

Delete per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and failing WP:GNG. Largely sourced to game guide pages, and Redstone and its unique gameplay is already discussed in the main article for Minecraft. A standalone article WP:SPLIT does not appear to be necessary, as most of the additional information added in this article is just patch notes. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That concept is already discussed in the main Minecraft article under the "Education" heading, though. And like I said, I don't see that section needing to be Split off into its own article when it can be, and already is, easily discussed in the appropriate main article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (redirect) as a non-notable item in a video game failing WP:GNG with insufficient reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The content about redstone creations is sourced but not specific to redstone itself and can be in the game's article as relevant and does not need a split. Otherwise, it's gamecruft. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hellknowz: Regarding your second point, if that is the case then you are suggesting a merge. In this case deletion is inappropriate as it will remove attribution of contributions. Polyamorph (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not suggesting a merge. Minecraft article already covers redstone creations with good sources. There are no sources and no content I consider worth merging here. This is gamecruft with dubious sources -- it's all tutorials and update notes. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for clarifying. Polyamorph (talk) 10:20, 16 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 Minecraft. The need for a stand-alone article has not been demonstrated, and independent notability outside of Minecraft is not shown. Clearly plausible search term, however. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netherite

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

Delete per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. I can't see this ever being notable as a standalone article, being a minor piece of game minutia that is sourced entirely to game guides. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in the nom, I don't see this ever becoming notable. Mere mentions are not enough, it needs to be substantially discussed. This is very rare for enemy mobs or game objects, even in the most widely known and popular games.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is “Minecruft”? Squid45 (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a portmanteau of "Minecraft" and "fancruft". Ionmars10 (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd be up to help improve it once it's in the draftspace, I'm not just saying "someone else do it" :P Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The correct procedure will then be move to draft (not delete to preserve history) and redirect. Polyamorph (talk) 09:33, 23 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 10:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Finegold

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

Notability issues, primarily. Also minimal non-promotional content—article reads as as résumé, with half the references being the subject's LinkedIn page, and information on the subject's favourite foods to boot. It is worth noting that the article's creator was blocked indefinitely for using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes (see User talk:Lizzie656). Kyuko (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kyuko (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Kyuko (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kyuko (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak-ish keep per [27], [28] (in French), [29] (best source). Being the rabbi of the oldest Jewish congregation in Canada, as the last article (in the Montreal Gazette) claims, seems like a very good indicator of notability. He's also cited as an authority on religious issues in the Canadian press, e.g., [30], [31]. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Thank you AleatoryPonderings I was leaning delete. We likely have enough for WP:GNG A few of the sources are non-trivial - just not in major publications that I am familiar with. As far as I know we do not have any notability passes for Rabbis. This Rabbi is the Executive Director of the Montreal Board of Rabbis may give him a bit more than other Rabbis. Wm335td (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wm335td: Yeah, I think you're right about the lack of SNGs for rabbis/other non-Christian religious leaders. Criterion 4 of WP:RELPEOPLE (essay, but I've seen it cited at AfD before)—[w]ere recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on religious matters/writing—might be relevant here with respect to his being executive director of the MTL Board of Rabbis, but it's probably safest just to go with WP:BASIC/GNG here. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to FIFA World Cup. Fenix down (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2038 FIFA World Cup

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
2038 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Ghana bid is provisional on several elements and the other two are speculative. Clearly WP:TOOSOON. A redirect might be appropriate but I'm not sure what that target would be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. – bradv🍁 05:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tipica

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

Journal that fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG. 1900-5121, its ISSN, does not turn up any results at MIAR (a directory of journal indexes) although it does appear to have been legitimately assigned. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nothing sourced to merge. czar 04:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Highlander

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

Non notable films, tagged for 2 years. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  JGHowes  talk 22:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sainik School, Manasbal

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 01:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree. The year's budget is highly indicative of the standing of the school; a yearly budget of approx. 90 million US dollar is quite a sum, and the extension of facilities and programs shows that the school is not some local little school too. All information is dated, it is easy to refer to NOTNEWS in nearly every article. And the subject certainly meets GNG. Eissink (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • The school is one of some 33 Sainik Schools in India, and this one would be the only one not notable? This DR doesn't make sense, even if the article could be better. Eissink (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor reason for keeping an article Spiderone 12:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you be a bit more specific? Saying "doesn't pass GNG" is so easy. I mean, the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so it basically passes GNG, so what do you mean? I hope the closing admin is more consciëntious than the contributions I've seen so far on this page. Eissink (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The coverage is all routine and insignificant; the first two refs are not reliable at all and the other three are secondary sources but the coverage is run-of-the-mill Spiderone 12:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One could name all but the highest quality scientific editions "routine, insignificant and run-of-the-mill", but I don't agree. Even the three given newspaper sources separately contain valuable information about a considerable army school, one of two of the kind in the whole of Jammu & Kashmir. You may find it all insignificant, I don't, and we're not even only here for ourselves. I don't get why some people think we should hunt eight year old articles, even after they have been improved. Eissink (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Per the existence of sources like [32], [33] and [34]. The standard for sourcing required of secondary schools has historically been low (due to the legacy WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). While the majority of secondary schools in India are non-notable, this is one of the exceptions. This is a boarding school of note having a very selective entrance process. The sourcing available here is much more than what is typically available for an Indian school. If we delete this, we may as well delete 95% of all existing Indian school articles as they have lesser sourcing available than here.
The delete votes thus far are based on a blind application of GNG without considering the context. – SD0001 (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every article is judged on its own merits... The Banner talk 23:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with SD0001 that context is important in applying GNG. Most other 26 Sainik schools have similar or lower sourcing available. However this school with an annual budget of nearly Rs. 9 crores (approx 1.2 million USD) is notable (sources confirming this). Roller26 (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We still judge articles on their own merits, not on their context. And yes, the school has a bduget, just like every other school in the world. So having a budget says nothing towards notability. The same with facilities. Ow, and interestingly, their own website-domain is expired... But it still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL The Banner talk 12:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Context is important because India is a lower middle income country. Not all local and state level media have resources or need to maintain and update all their coverage on a proper website with index-able articles in non-English language. Even top media houses like Times of India routinely have expired links for couple of years old articles. Hence it's more than likely that significant coverage exists for such an institution in multiple local sources which are either not existing on web or at-least not easily Googlable. Having a significant budget (9 crore) for couple of hundred high school students shows the importance that Indian government gives to such an institute. Roller26 (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, context and budget says nothing about the notability of this subject. The Banner talk 13:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improved article – I have improved the article considerably, based on a multitude of sources from no less than seven different media outlets. Those who are interested in the subject will no doubt be able to expand the article considerably, not only from the given sources, but from so far unmentioned sources also. I think I have shown that the subject is notable, by all means. Eissink (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • The cosmos consists of trivia, might as well delete the entire Wikipedia. I hope, and expect, the sysop that closes this request does not agree with your interpretation of the notability guidelines. Eissink (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing but a parade of shortcuts – have you read or even seen the article? There's an abundance of IS SIGCOV links given in the footnotes, addressing solely the subject. I can't believe this is happening – you don't expect me to list the sources here when I have clearly stated that the article was expanded from no less than seven different independent media sources, do you? Do you even appreciate what other editors are doing, TimothyBlue, or are you just giving this discussion half an eye and don't bother to read further than the first reactions ("much the Keep argument is OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" no, it isn't)? Eissink (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
And you have made the article into a parade of trivia. And trivia adds nothing to notability. The Banner talk 19:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may denounce my style, but the constituting information I provided is based on the significant coverage in [many] reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And, as I said before, there is more information to be found, not only in the wide range of sources that I have used, for anyone who may happen to be interested in the subject. Eissink (talk) 20:22, 21 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phrase (software)

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

Notability does not appear to be established by cited sources. Guardian article only quotes the CEO of the company that makes this software, and isn't about the software. The article was created by the CEO. Beland (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow discussion of sources provided in the last comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While the Techbeacon Article [41] seemed somewhat of a breakthrough nature and would appeal to a wide audience, the rest of the article resembled more of a Google or Yelp summation, nothing that noteworthy other than the first article. TruthLover123 (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 22:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Schwulst

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

BLP that does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Mccapra (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, as per earlier decline of draft. MurielMary (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I respectfully disagree. Schwulst fulfills section 1 of WP:CREATIVE as she is widely cited by peers in the field of design education. See: Interactive Design Syllabus citing Schwulst Parsons - Syllabus citing SchwulstSyllabus citing Schwulst VCU Syllabus citing Schwulst CCA syllabus citing Schwulst --Wil540 art (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those links are to college syllabi in which she is thanked or acknowledged (alongside other people) for providing inspiration or precedents or guidance to fellow academics in the field. This is not the same as being "cited by peers". "Cited by peers" would be her work cited in a piece of academic research e.g. her research used as a basis for another piece of research, or a publication by her referred to in a footnote. Is there evidence of this peer citation? MurielMary (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledgement in a syllabi is the design education equivalent of being cited by peers. Your understanding privileges academic writings over teaching practices. --Wil540 art (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my personal understanding, it's the language of the Wikipedia policy/guideline. If you disagree with "cited by peers" as a criteria and want to broaden the criteria to include "acknowledged in a college syllabi" then that is something for you to take up in another forum. As the policy stands, being acknowledged by peers does not seem to meet the criteria of notability for an academic. Also note that the phrase in the policy is "widely cited by peers", so being acknowledged by peers within the same institution as oneself would not seem to meet this criteria either. MurielMary (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Schwulst is a pioneer of interactive design, influential both in her work and writing which epitomizes the 'slow web.' Her statement My website is a shifting house next to a river of knowledge, what could yours be? and article Personal Voice (Art in America, 2017), among other texts, have ignited trends in web design and encouraged others in the field. --Rgm38 (talk 21:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Tokyo subway sarin attack#Main perpetrators. Roughly, people agree that Kitamura is notable in the context of the attack. There is some disagreement whether WP:1E applies here, but there is a suitable merge target which will generally allow the content to be preserved. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kōichi Kitamura (terrorist)

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

Delete per WP:1E. The subject was one of the minor accomplices in the Tokyo subway sarin attack and is mentioned in that article. Otherwise he has no lasting significance or coverage. Yoninah (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, yup, but some like Kenichi Hirose and Ikuo Hayashi have their own articles. I made the comparison elsewhere about the Manson family members having all their own articles. Some Aum members (not particularly Kitamura) deserve an article for playing key role in the developing of sarin attacks over the years. Cheers! ^_^ --CoryGlee (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Rosen

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

Sources referencing Rosen (of which there is only one in the article) are entirely about the context of his role as gatekeeper to Bob Dylan. Since notability is not inherited by proximity, I see nothing establishing this subject as independently notable for an article. BD2412 T 15:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 15:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural closure. Duplicate of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 FA Summer Tournament started a few minutes earlier. Sandstein 15:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 FA Summer Tournament

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
2021 FA Summer Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON and lack of WP:GNG ~ Amkgp 💬 15:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate AfD You are correct that this nomination should be closed. The first one was opened moments before this one [[43]]. I do not know what the correct tag is WP:A10? So I messaged GiantSnowman because they helped sort out a similar issue before. Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 22:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cygilant

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

This company is not meeting notability guidelines for inclusion in the Wikipedia? While there are many sources noted, they are virtually all advertising their capital raises. That does not show relevance in the market, just that they collected money from VCs. All of their references seem to be self-generated news releases about venture capital raises. Goldenrowley (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - The company has some less than cooperative history with the security community that is shown on the page. In addition they were hacked by NetWalker threat actors in Aug 2020. Which is ironic given their "Cybersecurity-as-a-Service" mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miden (talk • contribs) 22:27, September 3, 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete I cannot locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most are run-of-the-mill announcements or commentary on their twitter spat which contain no in-depth information on the company from an unaffiliated party. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing 11:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own at this time. @Goldenrowley: For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall talk 15:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 FA Summer Tournament

[edit]
2021 FA Summer Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails verification and WP:NOTCRYSTAL (doubly so in this COVID age, saying minor friendly matches will take place nine months from now...). No sources and much of the text is copied from 2004 FA Summer Tournament. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 05:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zsuzsa Szikra

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

Subject does not meet WP:N.
A Google search of her name turns up just 2,340 hits.
The text of the article appears to be copied directly from the artist's (self-penned?) bio at a site called "Picasso Mio" ( https://www.picassomio.com/zsuzsa-szikra.html )
The article is rife with weasel words such as claiming that her "...works are marked by their poetic abstract character" (whatever that might be), and utterly pointless claims like "During her childhood Zsuzsa spend her summer holidays with her grandmother on the shores of Lake Balaton in Hungary" and "Zsuzsa and her grandmother made long boat trips on the lake Balaton which made a lasting impression on Zsuzsa..."
The article reads like an advertisement.
The article is full of cruft, such as a list of "study trips" in which the subject visited the Hermitage and other museums.
There are no images of the artist's work.
Four "external links" are listed, three of which either have 404 errors or revert to the homepage, and the fourth has 4 sentences (in Hungarian).
Trying to determine which -- if any -- of the 34 provided reflist links are active, are relevant, or support WP:N would be a Herculean task.
I propose that the article be deleted for failing to meet WP:N. Bricology (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Gayhurst House. Content can be merged from history if desired. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Moulsoe

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

Declined prod due to contestation on article's talk page. However that rationale was that he was associated with a few notable people, and his input at Gayhurst House. However notability is not inherited. He could warrant a mention on both the Everard Digby and Gayhurst articles, but there is no notability on his own. Onel5969 TT me 14:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move to Draft:Eurovision Song Contest 2022. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Song Contest 2022

[edit]
Eurovision Song Contest 2022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as it is too soon to create this article. The contest currently fails WP:N, as the only coverage it has does not concern the contest itself, only a couple of potential participants' plans for competing. Aside from that, only generic information is known about the contest, which could violate WP:CRYSTAL.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 13:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't deletethis page because there are news about australian partecipation about EUrovision 2022. There are also news about Andorra. Writing this page is 100% correct because these two countries partecipate to the contest, so this page talks about contest tself.--Michele1999 (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)--Michele1999 (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Michele1999: I disagree that the news about Australia's selection process concerns the contest itself. Nothing is known about the organisation of the contest, when or where it will take place, or even if it will take place at all. Australia confirming their national final doesn't have any bearing on the notability of the contest, as SBS are not responsible for organising it. The same goes for the news about Andorra.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 13:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn, I will as suggested renominate individual articles instead (not all at once of course, just one or two to start). Fram (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle

[edit]
1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have a whole bunch of articles on the order of battle per country (and sometimes per branch) in 1989. 1989 was more or less the end of the Cold War, but despite this, this articles all seem to have the same problem: a lack of notability. For example the Portuguese order of battle in 1989 has not been a separate subject of reliable sources, and is as such a random choice (a random intersection of characteristics) for an article, and no more or less notable than the 1988 or 1990 order of battle in Portugal.

Also nominated for the same reason are:

Fram (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immediate keep: I propose to snowball close. The end of the Cold War in 1989 was a key event of the 20th century and the East-West confrontation with their massive military buildups began to unravel rapidly once the Berlin Wall fell. By 1990 every military had begun to downsize and Soviet Forces were moving out of Eastern Europe. 1989 was the end of Cold War. One of the big five years in military history of that century: 1914, 1918, 1939, 1945, 1989. Therefore snowball close these destructive deletion requests. noclador (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Noclador: I would strongly suggest refactoring your comment above that discusses the contributor and not the content. Woody (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having a hard time trying to justify a blanket keep for every different country. I certainly don't feel there is a presumption to keep unless they can clearly be shown in secondary/tertiary reliable sources. I'm not necessarily seeing the justification for this kind of article. Woody (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1989 is one of the most important years of the Cold War, with 1989 marking the fall of the Berlin Wall (hence why Cold War historians use this number). It marks the peak of the armed forces of the Warsaw Pact and NATO, hence why this snapshot in time is so representative of their forces. I think it has sufficient notability to continue to exist. Garuda28 (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep These are notable articles based on the year and the composition of forces at that time. It is defining period in world history. An ambitious editor could create a list for such entries in relation to Warsaw Pact and NATO. I find the articles notable. Note: the problem with multiple items packaged as one, is we run the risk of deleting notable articles - so one reason I call for a procedural keep. I also sensed Noclador's frustration with the mass nomination. Lightburst (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Lightburst. I find their comments to the point and persuasive. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. 1989 was really the last year of the unprecedented military buildup of the 1980s, I for one have used these pages many times for use in wargames and writing as well as looking for historical sources within these pages. Also notable are the many force structure images showing individual divisional organizational charts, these are imperative for deducing a basic understanding of the late Cold War force structure. As for 1989 being no more notable than 1990 that is patently false. By the fall of the Berlin wall, many countries began to drastically reduce defense expenditures and shrink force postures. I truly hope the decision is made to keep all of these wikis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taco107 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC) — Taco107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. Sourced orders of battle are notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many sources refer to 1989 as being the endpoint for Cold War era militaries (due to the effective end of the Cold War, and the commencement of negotiations for the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe which also led to rapid cutbacks), and use that as the benchmark for earlier and subsequent structures. As such, sourcing and notability should both be fine. Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone, anyone, among all those keep votes could have provided a few sources to show that e.g. 1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle is a notable subject, meeting the WP:GNG. Anyone? Anything? "Should be fine", "Used it many times", "I find the articles notable", ... all very well, but in the end not a reason to keep any of these articles or all of them unless you have something to back up these claims. Fram (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note how e.g. Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 has been correctly tagged as being completely unsourced since 2016. If these pages are about suvjects which are so notable and important that they warrant knee-jerk keeps, perhaps some effort could be made to show that they actually are as notable as you claim them to be? Fram (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. We should keep the Orbats, there is no reason to remove them - exactly the opposite, this is one of the rarer years for which near-complete lists of all country's Orbats exist. I could only wish for such extensive coverage of all European countries' Orbats for any other historical period. It is foolish to delete - I am strongly for keeping the Orbat articles. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there is a reason to delete them, just like for most AfDs: a lack of notability for the individual order of battle of Portugal, Switzerland, Belgium, ... in this year. It's one of the most basic dividing lines we have at enwiki; if there are no reliable, independent sources discussing the actual topic indepth, then we shouldn't have an article on it. That a lot of people find it useful or interesting is why Wikia was created. Fram (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, there are lots of reliable independent sources discussing all these topics, in-depth. Your nomination of the Canadian article demonstrates how little you examined them: Noclador built that article from a detailed listing sourced from the recent Canadian defence review of the time.
      • To quote: "The article is based on the Canadian government's 1987 White Paper "A Defence Policy for Canada" (Link), which was published at the end of 1987. The White Paper served as basis for the overall structure and the equipment numbers. The article was then expanded with information from the Canadian Armed Forces Annual Historical Reports, which provided a complete listing of all units in existence in 1989."
      • Now, not all of them draw on official defence reviews, but just because, for example, the data has not been uploaded from the Bulgarian archives to make it accessible to English-speaking internet users does not mean that the article should be nominated for deletion. AfD is not cleanup. The sources exist - these are well functioning countries with great interest in the armed forces. They may not be in English, though.. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, you start with "lots of reliable independent sources" (italics mine), and then give as example a prime example of a source which isn't independent at all, a white paper from the Canadian Government. So your rebuttal here is hardly convincing. Fram (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whoops. Egg on my face. Should have read the phrase a little less angrily. No, whoops, no, not independent. What I mean to say is that these kind of incredibly detailed nationstate government listings are the most non-controversial kind of thing imaginable: they just about put you to sleep - that or the comparable Australian defence reviews which are of the same nature. Using this kind of non-independent sources are completely justified because they don't convey a particular political viewpoint - think about it - whether HQ 1 Canadian Brigade Group is in Vancouver or Calgary, and whether, thus, Headquarters Company, 1 Canadian Brigade Group, is in Vancouver or Calgary - does have any angle that can convey a political slant, diminishing reliability. On top of that, these kinds of unendingly boring lists are usually put out by governments within which we could attach citations to every particular unit. Would you rather have the Canadian article re-created by Noclador and I, but not with the single Canadian defence review source, but 950 footnotes from newspaper articles etc? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • No need for 950 footnotes and no need to remove such sources. They are perfectly reliable and useful once the notability of the subject has been established by independent sources. Not every fact, every detail, needs independent sourcing: using official sources for this is best practice (unless there is a reason to dispute or doubt them of course). Fram (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Those putative 950 newspaper, article, magazine, book-sourced, footnotes demonstrate the independent and reliable source coverage, thus, the subject is notable. If you want a single, specific, reliable, independent source that demonstrates the notability of this subject in this time period, see NATO Armies Today. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. 1987. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help), reprinted 1988 (copy available for perusal here). It includes this exact kind of listing of army units for most of these countries (though not air or WP). The official sources are the most accurate and we should base ourselves on them, but please, if you're happy with the putative other sources, such as Thomas & Volstad 1988, then just withdraw this time-wasting nomination. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, sources from prior to 1989 or from 1989 can not demonstrate that the 1989 OoB of these countries is particularly notable. What would be needed is sources from later showing how the 1989 Oobs were somehow special, as a group (so not a source about regiment X and another about Battalion Y, but a few about the importance of the 1989 Swiss OoB and so on. Fram (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Where does it say 'independent, reliable, and of later date' when it talks about the GNG? You're now going well beyond our policy guidelines. Better to stick to what it actually says - independent and reliable. Your claim has no validity.
                  • But, if I treat your request for a later date's source as merely a polite request for information, that particular book in question that I just provided the reference for was reprinted. It was first published in 1987, then reprinted in 1988.
                  • Then it was reprinted three more times, in 1995, 1998, and 1999.
                  • So (a), we have provided you official sources, which are the most authoritative source, since it's their armed forces; (b) independent and reliable sources, demonstrating unquestioned WP:NOTABILITY; and, also, as a favour to you, I have in good faith provided the extra information that you would have found had you looked at the reference - yes there was continuing interest in those independent and reliable sources for many years afterwards.
                  • This nomination is frivolous, as demonstrated above, and has *no* policy-based relevance. Kindly withdraw it forthwith. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Nothing frivolous about it. The only reason to withdraw it would be to restart it for individual articles. Back to your point: a source from 1987 or 1988 can hardly be used as evidence that 1989 is such a special, noteworthy year. That the source is reprinted afterwards doesn't change this one bit. We need an independent, reliable source, written in or preferably after 1989, showing that the 1989 OoB are especially noteworthy. Your source doesn't do that, you source literally can't do that.
                    • In fact, your sources actually disproves the whole "Oh, 1989 is so important for the OoB" argument. If a source called "NATO Armies Today" can be published in 1987, and reprinted identically in 1995, 1998, and 1999, then where is the watershed of 1989, which makes this whole series of articles necessary? For your claims to be true and these articles to be necessary, the book you present as damning evidence for your cause should have become completely outdated by 1990 and would never have been reprinted as "Todays armies" by the late 1990s. You can't have your cake (1989 is important because everything changes) and eat it (this 1987 book being reprinted unchanged in 1998 and 1999 proves it!). Fram (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to argue that 1989 (well, the late 1980s, 1987, 1988) wasn't specifically important. I am saying the demand for information about NATO armies in the late 1980s was important enough that the book was reprinted, by popular demand, three more times!! There was no total change by 1990 - the force structure changes hardly started. And this was *well before* the internet; gathering information was much more difficult; a comparable book in 1984-85, Isby & Kamps, fell so far behind completing and updating that an extra author had to be brought on board.
Never mind. I have answered with a specific example, your request for an independent and reliable source focused on the late 1980s. This unquestionably demonstrates WP:NOTABILITY of the subject (though not perhaps the *exact* year 1989; I have my doubts on that, as I've said elsewhere here). I have in good faith also provided, in response to your request, detail saying it was done at a later date, wording not required or included in the policy. Then you've twice changed the terms of your requests to try and claim this book does not meet your extra request for information. I'm done. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I asked for an independent and reliable source focused on 1989, not on "the late 1980s". You have not provided "detail saying it was done on a later date", you have given an exact reprint of an earlier source. That a book which is not about 1989, gets written before 1989 and reprinted unchanged long after 1989, is supposed to be proof of the notability of these 1989 articles, is simply not a convincing argument at all. Fram (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am ambivalent about this nomination but there is a distinct lack of policy-based argument above, with most comments above being shades of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:VALINFO. What makes an order of battle for 1989 more notable than, say, 1945 or 1956? My understanding is that many of these armies were already significantly below their Cold War peak by 1989 which could be argued to be the least justifiable year for the entire the Cold War. And why do all countries in Europe need to have orders of battle for the same date? I wrote Belgian Army order of battle (1914) on the basis that there were plenty of sources which addressed the specific nature of the Belgian Army at the outbreak of World War I but I do not see the same source basis here. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the focus on 1989 is sometimes taken to extreme levels. Noclador has unwisely tried to push the source limitations re the Army National Guard for 1989 when there is a single available source, Isby & Kamps, clearly laying out 1985 which could be substituted.
      • Most Cold War armies were at their peak in 1989. The Reagan build up of military forces went on throughout the 1980s. I.e. the Italian Army was at its strength peak between 1 December 1988 (activation of the Motorized Brigade "Sassari") and 1 April 1991 (disbanding of the Armored Brigade "Mameli"), the US Army was at its post-Vietnam peak between 16 April 1986 (activation of the 6th Infantry Division) and 15 September 1990 (inactivation of 2nd Brigade, 2nd Armored Division, followed two weeks later by the inactivation of 1st Brigade, 9th Infantry Division), the German Army grew its strength all through the 1980s reaching full Heeresstruktur 4 in 1990 (Heeresstruktur 4: expanded 2x Jäger divisions to Panzergrenadier divisions, expanded 2x Panzergrenadier divisions to Panzer divisions, and added 12x armored Heimatschutzbrigaden). Heeresstruktur 5 began the drawdown of forces in 1990, which resulted in 27 brigades being disbanded by 20 March 1993. So 1989 IS the peak for Cold War forces on both sides of the Iron Curtain (the drawdown was even more massive and speedily in the Warsaw Pact nations). noclador (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh I think it's hard with a group nomination such as this, but I agree with Brigade Piron that there has been a lack of policy-based !voting. I took a look at Canada and found the following (broad coverage of the army in 1989): Maclean's article, NYTimes article, [44], Strike, Carol. 1989. “Profile of the Canadian Armed Forces” Canadian Social Trends. No. 15. Winter. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11-008XPE. p. 17-22., [45], [46], and a 1989 conference. There's more coverage in the same vein, which suggests that 1989 is a very significant year in the Canadian army. Various books use 1989 as a cut-off point, such as Imagining Nuclear War in the British Army, 1945-1989 and US Army Rangers 1989–2015: Panama to Afghanistan, again indicating that it is a particularly notable year militarily. Does that justify having these extensive listings of structures? I don't know. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. While various books indeed use 1989 as a cut-off point, others use e.g. 1991, like "American Military Police in Europe, 1945-1991: Unit Histories"[47] or "A Military History of the Cold War, 1962–1991"[48]... Some of your results seem rather irrelevant as well, e.g. in this one [49] the words "order of battle" don't appear together with 1989. Actually, when looking for "1989" and "order of battle" in books[50], it becomes quite clear that the results mostly deal with the order of battle in actual active wars, and not in the more theoretical sense of the "order of battle" in a stand-off situation like here. Fram (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The term "order of battle" means very little. What we are dealing with is a listing of every unit (or restricted to every combat units only) in a nationstate army or navy or air force, with their locations, in their correct command structure hierarchy, and sometimes with their equipment. Sometimes sources call that 'order of battle'; sometimes they call it 'structure'; sometimes they simply call it a 'list'. Now here on WP we often standardize terminology across different countries, and people who work on the same things will often use the same terms for multiple countries. And we work with the limitations of our language - I am not sure what such a list compiled in Bulgarian for Bulgaria would be titled, but it might not be 'order of battle.' None of that semantics changes anything about the notability of the material. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fram 1989 was the most defining year of the Cold War - you can read about it at Revolutions of 1989. In military terms, how momentous was this year: well, the Cold War era Polish People's Army was disbanded on 31 December 1989. That alone warrants an article about the Polish People's Army structure in 1989. Likewise the Nationale Volksarmee began to disband in January 1990 and was dissolved on 2 October 1990. The Pentagon announced on 29 January 1990 which divisions and brigades would disband in the post Cold war era. The Soviet Union began to return its Group of Soviet Forces in Germany on 1 June 1989, with three divisions gone by 12 October 1990. The Soviets began to leave Czechoslovakia in February 1990. East Germany took its forces out of the Warsaw Pact military structure in summer of 1990, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary followed. And so on and on. 1989 is per se a notable year for everything. It's like 1939 or 1945 a key year of the 20th century. Demanding we prove for every single European country the notability of the events related to military matters in 1989 is not needed. As said 1989 is a key year of history, especially for military history of Europe and political history of Europe. Notability is given that in 1989 a 44-year long war ended and the militaries of the nations involved in that war are per se notable. noclador (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A sourced snapshot of a particular situation (military forces in Europe and the US) at a particular time is one area where WP excels as an online encyclopedia, free of the limitations of print. See WP:5P1. I really don't understand why some editors want WP to be less informative. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 00:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • But these articles are hardly informative. The defense is that 1989 was ultra-special as the end of the Cold War, and that things changed rapidly and dramatically: but then we would need, want, expect an article about changes, not one showing a static snapshot. These articles learn me absolutely nothing about the supposed importance, the impact of the end of the Cold War. Structure of the Canadian Armed Forces in 1989 is a very long article which teaches me completely nada about the Cold War, the events of 1989, the impact these had on the Canadian Army, ... It's just a glorified database. Fram (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fram Your comment above shows that you have a total lack of knowledge about these topics. These articles are highly informative and full of valuable knowledge, but one must be able to read them and understand them. The article you mention is not "just a glorified database", that's an ignorant and insulting comment. The article is a clear snapshot of how the Canadian military was organized at the end of the Cold War, and if you took some time to read it than this snapshot can show you how Canada planned to fight a war in Europe, how it planned to grow its army, where it expected to have to defend its own territory, where it expected to have to support NATO's maritime strategy, how it expected to contain Soviet nuclear subs, how it interacted with the US military, and and and. As you are unable to understand the information in these articles and therefore incapable to comprehend the value of these articles your AfD of all of them is an insult to the editors, who worked on them and use them repeatedly. If you want prose, there are 100s articles for that i.e. Military history of Canada, Canada in the Cold War, History of the Canadian Army, History of the Royal Canadian Navy, Canada in the Cold War, North American Aerospace Defense Command, Distant Early Warning Line, etc. etc. and so many more. Your above comment shows that you are not qualified to assess these articles and that you started this AfD out of ignorance and arrogance. I suggest you close this AfD immediately and stop wasting the time of qualified editors. noclador (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These AfDs should be split up. I agree mostly with Brigade Piron's comment. There should be a policy-based reason for keeping these articles, and so far few have really been provided that could apply to all of them. That said, the end of the Cold War year was an important time in history, and to delete all of these at once would be somewhat rash. These AfDs should be done individually, that way we can evaluate the sourcing for each one and see if the topic merits notability. For example, I can totally understand why a US order of battle from 1989 would matter, but I'm doubtful Portugal's is really of importance, seeing as its importance in the Cold War climaxed in the 1970s. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Indy beetle Portugal didn't "climaxed in the 1970s". Portugal's armed forces were part of NATO integrated command structure, providing one three-star maritime command (IBERLANT) and two two-star sea/land commands (ISCOMADEIRA and ISCOMAZORES), a key US Air Force REFORGER and Supply and maritime interdiction base (USAFORAZ) and providing 27 ships to SACLANT (and a reserve mechanized brigade to SACEUR). Besides only saying that the US order of battle matters ignores the Belgian, Dutch, British, Canadian and French divisions in Germany, whose presence there was THE defining aspect for the Cold War era for these countries. noclador (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm always on the fence on what to do in cases like this. When I AfD just one article from a series of similar or related ones, I get questions about "why this one and not that one" or "you can't delete this one, it is part of a series". When I AfD them all, I get "we can't evaluate them all at once" or "but they aren't the same" (which, to be fair, is probably more the case here than in some other mass-AfDs I have done). I'll give it a bit more time, but it may indeed be best if I then withdraw this AfD and restart one for one country or section only. Fram (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The order of battle of NATO countries in 1989 is a significant milestone.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Contrary to the one "keep" opinion's assertion, we do not have a rule that "11th century nobility who are documented by one reliable source are notable". Sandstein 09:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich, Graf von Sülichen

[edit]
Friedrich, Graf von Sülichen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the other end of deposed monarchy cruft. This is ancestry to monarchs cruft. The sourcing here is only a publicly editable genealogical database. There is no sourcing to any reliable sources, let alone the quality scholarly secondary sourcing that Wikipedia is supposed to be based on. There is no indication of holding a position that was actually notable, nor of later scholars caring about this individual. There is clearly not enough evidence to justify a free standing article John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay K Saklani

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

Fails wp:GNG, not much wp:SIGNCOV QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 11:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 11:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 22:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Re-Insurance Company Limited

[edit]
Nepal Re-Insurance Company Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Draftification did not stick. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 22:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Audio

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

Contested PROD. My original rationale was "Fails the notability guideline for companies. Highly promotional tone, some copyright violations suspected." – Teratix ₵ 09:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 09:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 09:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 09:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This AfD suggests that a conversation about WP:NBISHOP may be needed, as most of these comments are about auxiliary bishops in general rather than the notability of this particular subject. Regardless, there is no consensus here to delete the article. – bradv🍁 05:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey S. Grob

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

Auxiliary bishops-are not automatically notable , because they have no responsibility for a diocese. No substantial coverage, just announcements. DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's referenced. Look at the 4th reference, first paragraph of the reference. Roberto221 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the media sources referenced in the article make him notable per GNG, and there is no carve-out for auxillary bishops in WP:NBISHOP. Moreover, it is irrational to delete the article as sometimes auxillaries get ordained. Wikimedia software automatically puts up a little warning against creating an article that has been previously deleted. This warning would be enough to scare away a decent chunk of so-called "content creator" type editors for good. If this article is deleted and he gets to be a regular bishop someday, I would not expect the article to be re-created. Change my vote to Delete if the wikimedia software is reconfigured so that the previously deleted article warning does not show up for deleted auxiliary bishops prior to the closing of the AfD proceeding.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the Catholic Church a bishop, is a bishop, is a bishop until he's the pope. They may function differently depending on where they are and what they do, but they are all form the same order and are responsible for episcopal leadership in the Church. In a Church council/synod they all get one vote regardless. I do want to correct a couple of assertions above: all bishops are ordained bishop and auxiliaries are real bishops. The diocesan bishop has the ultimate responsibility in the local church, but his auxiliaries are not less of a bishop than he is. Farragutful (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Roberto221, Farragutful and past outcomes. Auxiliary bishops in the Roman Catholic Church are typically administrators of a defined area, usually several counties such as the suburbs of a major city that is the see of a metropolitan (Archbishop). They are also honorary bishops in a defunct diocese, such as in the former Ottoman Empire. Finally, they all get one equal vote in synods. In this particular case, he would probably govern part of the 1,400 square miles for the purposes of running that area, confirming teenagers, etc., and is to be Titular Bishop of Abora by the Euphrates. If this were an Episcopal or Lutheran assistant bishop, I would probably agree to delete, but in the Roman Catholic Church they have both substantive jobs and are figureheads of ancient sees. Unlike in some Christian denominations, only a bishop can ordain other clerics and preside over Catholic confirmations. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Roberto221. Not having responsibility for a diocese ≠ not notable. I can think of several auxiliaries (e.g. Robert Barron, Fulton J. Sheen, Joseph Ha) who are more notable than the Ordinaries of some residential dioceses. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Bishops are simply managers. Some are good managers, others are bad managers. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse exposed many bishops as failing the community and failing to deal correctly with their staff, their employees, ordained to the order of presbyterate to directly assist bishops. Bishops avoided the Royal Commission, Archbishops stonewalled and one claimed that for the Royal Commission to pursue Bishops for failing to deal with criminals said, on record, "that would violate the primacy of conscience" of the criminal. Bishops are simply managers and they had to be dragged - all over the world, look at the fall of Theodore (no-longer-Cardinal) McCarrick, disgraced and returned to the lay state - kicking and screaming into bankruptcy and the courts over child sexual abuse. They can no longer hide from their duty to uphold criminal law, and protect the community. Just because they have ecclesiastical office does not mean they have any notability per se. WP:NBISHOP should be scrapped and Bishops should face GNG just like anyone else has to. Ante up, why should Bishops be something special when they ran from criminal law and protection of the community from paedophiles for so long? Why should Bishops have notability and not notoriety? --Whiteguru (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then why keep articles on dictators, depots, mobsters and their henchmen? The difference is, what now?...Roberto221 (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably keep -- at least for major churches such as Catholics. In the Anglican Church in UK we invariably have articles on suffrigan bishops (who have a similar role) and archdeacons. Whiteguru's attack on bishops does not address the point that these are important ecclesiastical official. The TOOSOON point is technically valid, but if appointment is certain, it is rather pointless to delete an article that will needed in a few months. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NBISHOP is a descriptive essay which prescribes no policy or guideline. It explicitly refers back to WP:GNG for determining notability of Catholic people. Elizium23 (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BitPesa

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

notability not established, all sources derived from press releases. sources from reputable media like WSJ, Forbes are isolated and do not cover the subject in depth. Blogs like Disrupt Africa are pay to publish. Ysangkok (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mohammad Hafeez. Tone 08:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Mohammad Hafeez

[edit]
List of international cricket centuries by Mohammad Hafeez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The minimum number of international centuries to qualify as a list is set at 25, and has been since at least 2012. This is because a century is not a rare feat in cricket, so in order to establish something that does not WP:MIRROR ESPNcricinfo or CricketArchive, we have set 25 as a more notable benchmark for lists, otherwise we head toward WP:NOTSTATS territory. Hafeez himself is unlikely to play international cricket again, so will not be adding to his tally. StickyWicket (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan. Ajf773 (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps they should be taken to WP:DRV if this one closes as merge. SpinningSpark 11:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfDs attracted almost no discussion (with nominations and almost all comments except those by Ajf773 based on a magical threshold of 25 that has no basis in policy or guideline) so their value in establishing consensus is very low. There has been far more input into the two AfDs currently in progress (this and this), from which a much clearer consensus can be drawn. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note the 25 threshold does not even have any basis in the WP:CRIC guidelines (which cannot override community consensus even if it did). It seems to be based entirely on the throwaway reply of one editor to a question in 2012 if the link provided by the nom is anything to go by. SpinningSpark 12:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Damien Martyn. Tone 08:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Damien Martyn

[edit]
List of international cricket centuries by Damien Martyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The minimum number of international centuries to qualify as a list is set at 25, and has been since at least 2012. This is because a century is not a rare feat in cricket, so in order to establish something that does not WP:MIRROR ESPNcricinfo or CricketArchive, we have set 25 as a more notable benchmark for lists, otherwise we head toward WP:NOTSTATS territory. StickyWicket (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But if it goes to 25 centuries you then create a standalone article? That doesn't make sense and shows no consistency. SpinningSpark 20:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan. Ajf773 (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfDs attracted almost no discussion (with nominations and almost all comments except those by Ajf773 based on a magical threshold of 25 that has no basis in policy or guideline) so their value in establishing consensus is very low. There has been far more input into the two AfDs currently in progress (this and this), from which a much clearer consensus can be drawn. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 08:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blyton Group

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

The subsidiary companies in this group may be notable, but this holding corporation doesn't pass WP:NCORP. 1292simon (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Ntambirweki

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

Does not pass WP:NBIO. All of the sources except for the Observer interview are not independent. The events described in the interview are unlikely to pass the notability threshold. 1292simon (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What criteria did 1292simon use to determine that Uganda's top two publishers by circulation, reach or revenue are "not independent". Do you want to tell me any random Ugandan can get published in all three of our top newspapers? The subject has sufficient notoriety to be published in three of our top media houses, has been recognised multiple times as a top legal mind from our country. I really do not understand your campaign targeted to this particular article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean O'Neill (snooker player)

[edit]
Sean O'Neill (snooker player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Already BLPPRODed and moved to draft once. No sources, and the juniors snooker player turned businessperson (note there are several other notable Sean O'Neills) does not appear meet GNG. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. While the page in its current form skirts close to qualifying for a G11 speedy, the assertion that he won "major (amateur) junior tournaments domestically, regionally, and worldwide" might benefit from elaboration. If references could be found to prove this, and the tournaments did indeed prove to be "major", then this might demonstrate notability per WP:SPORTSPERSON (A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur ... competition ... and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.) However, even if notability could be claimed under this criterion, the page is such a blatant breach of WP:NOTLINKEDIN that it would probably still benefit from being nuked from space and started from scratch. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan George Uy

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

Non-notable musician. This article was in draft space in this form and was declined and then moved to article space by originator anyway. Does not satisfy musical notability or general notability. Google search on Jonathan George Uy shows that he exists, and shows results for other people with similar names that are not the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shiboleth LLP

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

Promotional article about a non-notable U.S. affiliate of a non-notable Israeli law firm, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiboleth, Yisraeli, Roberts, Zisman and Moshe H. Ne'eman, Ben-Artzi & Co.. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources.

The contents of this article are a series of promotional bios of the partners. None of them are notable in a WP sense.

No consensus in 2015, but there was consensus to delete the article on the related firm. This articles is every bit as inappropriate. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to MouthShut.com. Tone 08:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Farooqui

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

I closed AfD1 as delete on 5 Feb 2017. Normally I would just list it for speedy as a recreation, except that it seems to have a complicated edit history past that date. I think as the consensus thought earlier, that the references are at best promotional interviews, and the attempts to defend the article by accusing us of prejudice against Indian source irrelevant-- newspapers in all countries, even ordinarily reliable ones, publish promotional interviews--the party notable in such cases is the press agent. There does not seem to be any actual accomplishments. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some references about the subject:
(The Economic Times is India's largest Business Newspaper. As of 2012, it is the world's second-most widely read English-language business newspaper, after The Wall Street Journal, with a readership of over 800,000.)
Faisal Farooqui along with other prominent startup founders have fought preserve open internet in India, and won against Facebook and Airtel (Big Telecom operator). There is lots of news coverage on this.

Faisal Farooqui runs India's biggest customer reviews website called Mouthshut.com and have taken head on to fight against some of the biggest companies in the world, who are trying to take his venture down or trying to whitewash negative reviews by customers about various brands and products. I suspect there is a big organized racket trying to discredit him and his initiatives.

Faisal Farooqui's notability is well established. He is frequently quoted by prominent newspapers and appears in national televisions in India on various socio-economic issues and internet technologies.

-- Tinu Cherian - 06:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was 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. – bradv🍁 05:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Günter Hermanns

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

"classical recording engineer and producer" are not job titles that attract much attention, as shown by the sparse references: Discogs and Allmusic. Fails WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Searches find brief mentions of the subject relative to his work with Karajan (also featuring in "The Second Life" film) and Mutter (e.g. her comment in The Gramophone, 1993, unfortunately only visible as a snippet), confirming the subject's distinguished career as a technician of choice, but these run into WP:NOTINHERITED problems. AllyD (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajaji (actor)

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

This actor has played second-fiddle in many movies. However, I couldn't find any sources about this actor. Created by a paid/blocked user. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwathy Warrier

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

Couldn't find any sources except for one.[1] Only played the lead in one film. Created by a blocked/paid user. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-cinemaplus/The-Maan-Karate-kid/article16792017.ece
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Fails to meet WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Majority of the listed sources are mere passing mention or unrelated to her career. Sunshine1191 (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article fails GNG, BASIC and NACTOR. Sources are mentions, nothing that covers the subject directly and indepth. It might just be TOOSOON, but WP is not CRYSTAL. Sources include XML documents for images, mentions, articles about her wedding video. None of this establishes notability. BEFORE showed only mentions.   // Timothy :: talk  19:24, 22 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. – bradv🍁 05:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinay

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

Created by a paid and blocked user. Couldn't find any sources. Played minor/second-fiddle roles in several films. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- His career atleast appears to be substantial. The lack of sources can be offset by tagging for improvement atleast for now. If the article isn't referenced in a period of time then the Afd can always be reopened. Sunshine1191 (talk) 17:44, 21 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 Chain Reaction (game show). – bradv🍁 05:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Lane

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

Fails WP:GNG, there is no evidence of notability for this man who may or may not have edited this article with an update about his life in the decade since appearing on a VH1 show but I don’t think isn’t enough to save this article from deletion. Pahiy (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.Pahiy (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. – bradv🍁 05:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australian rules football in Pakistan

[edit]
Australian rules football in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

questionable notability, reads like an advert, and it's not entirely obvious what topic the article is *actually* supposed to be covering FASTILY 03:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 05:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Musayev

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. Sources given are all basically PR pieces with no bylines. ... discospinster talk 03:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 03:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. – bradv🍁 05:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hizb-e-Abu Omar

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

Non-notable organization, fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG.

Detailed analysis of available sources

The first published mention of the organization anywhere is a 2007 news article in The Daily Star.[62] It is significant coverage in an independent, reliable source. It is straight news reporting, however, not a secondary source, as the reporter does not provide any "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" (the police press conference / perp walk).

The same day, the Hindustan Times references the online version of the DS article, tosses in some background information on other organizations, and generally gins up the story. For example, the original, where an arrestee confessed members used to fake their own kidnappings to extract money from their parents to fund the organization, gets spun into "those arrested confessed after interrogation that it was involved in kidnappings." It is significant coverage in an independent, reliable source. Their reinterpretation of the story arguably makes it a secondary source. However, the footnotes to the WP:GNG caution that multiple newspapers publishing the same story don't always constitute multiple works, "especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information." Although HT adds information, that information isn't about the organization.

One book contains one sentence about the organization.[63] That isn't significant coverage. I suspect their source is Wikipedia, which would also make it WP:CIRCULAR.

Since the 2007 article, the organization appears regularly in newspapers, on a list of 30 or so Islamic organizations suspected by Bangladeshi authorities of involvement in militancy ("There is a strong possibility that the organisations might get involved in militant activities anytime. So, we're closely watching their activities").[64][65][66] Being mentioned on a long list is not significant coverage.

To summarize the sources visually according to WP:ORGCRIT:

Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
The Daily Star Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN No analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis by the author
Hindustan Times Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Question? Not intellectually independent of The Daily Star (with respect to the organization)
Book Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN One sentence
Various news stories Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Brief mentions in a long list
Total qualifying sources 0-1
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

No clear merge or redirect target. The Hindustan Times says it's "a breakaway of the Harkat-ul-Jihad Islam (HUJI)", but it's unclear whether that's actually true. Their source (The Daily Star) says the organization is allegedly led by a founding member of HUJI, which isn't necessarily the same as being a splinter from it. -- Worldbruce (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. – bradv🍁 05:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harold W. Geisel

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. BEFORE showed routine, mill coverage for a normal government employee / political appointee.   // Timothy :: talk  17:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPOL(same reason as AleatoryPonderings said in the other article debate regarding Jacquelyn Williams Bridgers. There was an interview on Harold W. Geisel too, which gives some details about his personal life and talks about a little bit about his parents background [1]. Dillon251992 (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.adst.org/OH TOCs/Geisel, Harold W.toc.pdf
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  17:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  17:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to University of Lagos. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unilag FM

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a student radio station, referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself rather than any external verification that it actually passes any of WP:NMEDIA's criteria for the notability of radio stations. As always, the notability test for a topic like this is not just the ability to use its own self-created web presence as technical verification that it exists — we require evidence of external attention, not just the things an organization claims about itself. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mailliard, California

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

Mistakenly called a community on the basis of the unreliable GNIS database. The name appeared on the 1914 USGS topo map but has since disappeared. Durhams calls it a locality on the Northwestern Pacific RR and the topo map shows nothing but a nearby rail siding. No other evidence that this was ever a community and no indication that it is otherwise notable. Glendoremus (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This is a bit hard to sort on the topos/aerials but from what I can tell there was a passing siding here which may have already been gone by the 1950s (the aerial is a little too blurry to be certain), with the whole line gone by the 1970s. There's no sign that the present area of buildings was ever called by this name. Mangoe (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstone, Missouri

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

And here's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock, Missouri's more specific cousin. State Historical Society calls it "Sandstone Post Office", which really does seem to indicate no town. Not on the 1886 topo despite existing at that time. (Something to note: I've found a bit of a correlation between appearing on the 1886 topo and being an actual place for the Vernon and Cedar County places). 1939 topo includes places with the names "Sandstone School" and "Sandstone Cemetery", but no indication of a town by the name of Sandstone. By 1991, Sandstone appears on the topo, but with only two buildings there (it's east of the cemetery, but the school's disappeared by '91). Searches for notability-giving coverage brings up nothing, although the total genericness of the name doesn't help. Well, given that it doesn't show up on the topos until the year it gets entered into GNIS (90 years after it's heyday!), and the fact that it's referred to as a post office in historical sources, I'd say Sandstone fails GEOLAND and GNG. Hog Farm Bacon 01:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 01:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 01:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Le Conte

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

This journalist has written many things, but very little has been written about her by anyone else to indicate particular influence in her field. I can also find few reliable reviews of her book. While she has certainly been published, the specific requirements for notability at WP:JOURNALIST have not been met. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 16 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. czar 04:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Norton

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

BLP that does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Mccapra (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Keep, as there seems to be (beyond those in the article) "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". While the sources seem to be biased, since they are mostly magazines and websites concerning music, it does not impair independence (see WP:INDEPENDENT#Biased_sources). Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 19:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks could you share some of them here please? Mccapra (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with this assessment of the sources.
    1. [74] is a QA interview attached to an announcement of an upcoming concert, published by the Music Department of Norton's alma mater. While campus publications sometimes can be considered independent of students or alumni, byline-less press releases published by faculty departments are not.
    2. [75] is routine coverage by the Music Department
    3. [76] more routine coverage similar to #2
    4. [77] QA interview with no independent analysis
    5. [78] I think it would be a stretch to call this significant coverage, it's largely a softball interview with almost nothing other than quotes from Norton.
    6. [79] Not entirely sure what's going on here, the website appears to be a resume-site for one Elizabeth Baker. I don't think it's reliable
    7. [80] more coverage like #2 and #3. Slightly less routine, but not independent
    8. [81] QA interview
    9. [82] crowdsourced (read: unreliable) source, doesn't mention Norton
    10. [83] Quotes Norton but doesn't provide much independent coverage about him
    11. [84] Alumni publication that actually provides some coverage of Norton, best coverage so far
    12. [85] Independent, reliable coverage...of Honest Iago, that barely mentions Norton. It's not significant coverage of Norton
    13. [86] This link wouldn't open for me, but it appears to be another Honest Iago review at best
    14. [87] "Get to know a founder", not independent
    15. [88] Reads like a sponsored post, independence and significance of coverage are dubious
    16. [89] Reads like a press release
    17. [90] Listing by the record company that published one of Norton's works, not independent
    18. [91] Contains a piece by Norton, not about him
    All told, we've got one, maybe two independent pieces about Norton with borderline-significant coverage, and some ok coverage of one band that he was in that doesn't mention him much. I don't think this meets GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 20:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rosguill Thanks a lot for putting together all these links. Seeing them near one another surely gives a different picture. Some of the links are less independent that seemed to me the first time I looked at them. Some talked more about the band than I had initially assessed. However, we have to agree that he appears quite often here and there, and "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" WP:BASIC. QA interviews cannot be discarded, as it also contributes to establish the subjects notability. Why would you interview someone that is not notable? I agree with you that this interview [92] is not reliable, as the website owner has a reason to publish whatever (WP:CONFLICT, I guess). But the others are fine. For completeness, I'd like to add the links [93] and [94].

    Anyway, now that I was forced to go over all these sources, I'm slightly leaning towards a delete because all sources fail one of the pillars "reliable", "independent" and "significant coverage", and they do not make me comfortable in saying that Norton is notable in the sense of WP:BIO "the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be worthy of notice" or [...] "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary". Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 00:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    QA interviews don't provide us with any information other than what comes out of the subject's mouth; they're not usable for building an article except to contextualize or flesh out points already made by secondary sources. Sometimes QA pieces will open with a blurb about the subject, and that can be mined for writing an article, but in these examples I don't recall seeing much of that across the QA interviews. signed, Rosguill talk 00:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's definitely not notable for his teaching and I see nothing that meets any criteria at WP:NCREATIVE. Being an "assistant music editor" for two TV shows and an unreleased film do not seem like enough to me. There are a lot of sources, but when I go through them I'm not seeing much in the way of significant coverage from sources that are both reliable and independent. Therefore, I'd say he fails to meet WP:GNG and so I find no notability criteria that he meets. Papaursa (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:HEY Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Miles

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage. Potentially notable. scope_creepTalk 22:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the deletion flag. Robin Miles has won many awards for her work. She meets the notability requirements. This is a new page and obviously has lots of room for improvement but is more developed than most stubs. SJTatsu (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the flag as well. She is a prolific artist in her field with numerous awards. I will help look for additional sources ASAP. Betalister (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create
The Audie Awards are not low key. They are "the industry's highest honor" https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-explosion-in-audio-books/, and are often referred to as "the Oscars of the audiobook world" https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/best-audiobooks-2019-audie-awards-tan-france-1203136313/, https://ew.com/article/2014/05/29/billy-crystal-wins-the-audie-awards/, https://www.wsj.com/articles/audio-book-narrator-scott-brick-is-the-man-with-the-golden-voice-11553881394, https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-SEB-81485, https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/in-the-age-of-ear-buds-and-audiobooks-they-want-to-be-the-voices-in-your-head/2019/08/08/d0b35974-ba17-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html&usg=AOvVaw0fdrlUflA95f-2Vfer0LcW, https://www.broadwayworld.com/los-angeles/article/LA-Theatre-Works-THE-HOUND-OF-THE-BASKERVILLES-Wins-2015-Audie-Award-20150529, https://www.pastemagazine.com/books/audiobooks/audiobooks-guide-free-books-scribd-audible-librofm/, https://www.ncregister.com/features/audio-drama-of-st-francis-takes-audie-award, https://bookriot.com/audies-literally-turned-oscars-audiobook-world/ SJTatsu (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – bradv🍁 05:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martha's Vineyard Film Festival

[edit]
Martha's Vineyard Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seeking consensus. There is a fair amount of coverage in Boston-area publications such as WBUR and The Boston Globe, but a lot of it (e.g., [95]) seems like WP:ROUTINE announcements of festival lineups or similar. It is not clear to me that this festival has heft comparable to Sundance, Cannes, TIFF, etc.—especially since I don't see coverage in trade journals like the The Hollywood Reporter that would indicate industry prominence. But it might squeak by WP:NEVENT/WP:GNG with some not insignificant local-ish coverage. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:45, 31 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 22:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found 173 hits on Google news, and two on Google scholar. Most hits are announcements about what will be shown (remember newspapers are produced to be of use to their readers, and in general telling them what they could do is more useful than telling them what they could have done if only they had known). Nevertheless, there are enough stories about what did happen to meet the requirement for significant coverage.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Strangers in the House#Adaptations. czar 04:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger in the House (1997 film)

[edit]
Stranger in the House (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to help it pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability for 10 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PCJ Radio

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

Non-notable broadcaster/syndicator. The article has only two sources (one of which is a dead link) and the radio station has left virtually no footprint on the web after 12 years. Sowny (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Scott

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

The porn performer/model does not have significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore does not pass WP:BASIC in my view. The references in the article are niche porn industry outlets and a Google search found nothing better. The awards are not a sign of notability as the Porn Bio notability guideline was deprecated. Previously the article was deleted by prod but has been recreated. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks independent reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. Independent searches for reliable source coverage is are complicated by Google News and Book hits matching 4 other persons with the same name. Coverage found or the porn star seem to be limited to porn award rosters, press releases and trade press interviews. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete With a stage name as common as Kristen Scott (that’s like Monica Hernandez for Latina women) you’d be hard pressed to find this specific one immediately. I’m not against industry-specific sources like AVN, because realistically, who else is going to interview a pornographic actor? You deal with a landmine in these kinds of articles. One minute you find out where they were born, the next you’re inadvertently watching an ad for cam girls. It’s not like the New York Times letting Stoya do op-eds. Trillfendi (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BD2412 T 23:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there are many actresses and celebrities with the same name, Google may not be able to show many results. She has received various awards and has also participated in award ceremonies. Her film and she have been formally recognized by the International Film Festival. In my opinion, the article is notable.--SarojOffl (talk) 05:26, 16 Sptember 2020 (UTC)
  • Porn awards don't confer notability on the recipient without independent reliable sources that attest to the significance of the win. The WP:PORNBIO secondary notability guideline was deprecated in 2019 for this exact reason. As for "International Film Festival," you will need to be more specific and, more important, name a reliable source. Both the festival's and the actress' names are too generic, and independent searches yield false positives for a mainstream actress with a similar name. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: I see from your edits, that you are referring to the Queen Palm International Film Festival. Two problems: 1. That TheHollywoodTimes reference is an obvious refactored press release from the filmmakers. 2. Neither the film Teenage Lesbian nor the festival articles have independent reliable references to demonstrate notability per WP:NFILM and WP:ORG respectively. Starring in a porn industry award-winning porn film is a very weak claim even for WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment: what are the criteria of notability then? If it were only because of the AVN awards, she would be notable. Unless you are contesting the notability of the AVN Awards as whole. On the other hand, what else undisputed criteria can you adopt to state the notabily of a porn performer? -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 14:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Blackcat: The consensus since 2019 is that porn awards by themselves, even AVN Hall of Fame, are not enough to establish notability. A porn performer can still be notable by meeting the General Notability Guideline/WP:BASIC with significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources. Interviews and press releases don't count as secondary. Most porn sources like Fleshbot don't count as reliable. Porn award rosters lack depth of coverage and generally lack reliable secondary source coverage that proves significance. A porn performer also may be notable by passing one the the secondary criteria of WP:NACTOR, if and only if independent reliable secondary sources can support the claims. In this case, porn award wins low quality sources do not add up to notability. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 18 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 Chess.com#Speed Chess Championships. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Speed Chess Championship

[edit]
2018 Speed Chess Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Chess.com held an event and called it the "Speed Chess Championship". It's not an official event by a chess governing body, and the sourcing reflects that. It's almost entirely chess.com sources. The only other sources for this are statistics and press releases on other chess websites (i.e. a list of who won or promotional information about the event with no in-depth coverage outside of chess.com). Nominating this and the 2017 event article separately since the sourcing may well be different. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chess.com#Speed Chess Championships. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Speed Chess Championship

[edit]
2017 Speed Chess Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Chess.com held an event and called it the "Speed Chess Championship". It's not an official event by a chess governing body, and the sourcing reflects that. It's all chess.com sources. The only other sources I can see are statistics and press releases on other chess websites (i.e. a list of who won or promotional information about the event with no in-depth coverage outside of chess.com). Nominating this and the 2018 event article separately since the sourcing may well be different. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_September_15&oldid=1234120092"