Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 August 14 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crossfire KM[edit]

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

A promotional article likely created by a COI editor. I am not able to find any coverage in independent sources that would establish notability (besides this human-interest story in a local paper). I initially tagged this as a G11, but an earlier G11 tag was removed by Firearm2112. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G11 - Before removing the speedy tag, Firearm2112 had been dormant for over a year. The main article they edited before that was Bridgewater-Raritan High School which is described in the source you've linked above as the founders' high school. This editor is obviously connected. The source also mentions "Julian Melendi," a name that seems to match Julianmelendi, the page creator. This article is promotional. Toss it. —{CrypticCanadian} 00:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey all! Original author here! My bad on misunderstanding the rules, my first article! Upon reviewing the rules, totally agree this should be deleted. My bad! Go ahead and remove. Thanks! Julianmelendi (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was the first nominator for g11. Aside from the obvious conflict of interest (and clumsy meatpuppetry), there's no indication of notability per WP:ORG or WP:GNG, and I can find no significant coverage of the group online in reliable, secondary sources. Captain Calm (talk)
  • Delete - highly promotional article relying almost exclusively on self-published sources. --Slashme (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Promotional article, not enough independent sources, Alex-h (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Promotional piece on a subject that clearly lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Snow keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie D'Amelio[edit]

Dixie D'Amelio (edit | 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 independent of her sister Dosafrog (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Variety and Fox Business articles are about her, and only have passing mention of her sister. Seventeen article leads off with the fact that she is Charli's sister, but it focuses on her. Just as almost any article about Emma Roberts comments that she is Julia Roberts's niece, that doesn't mean Emma is not notable on her own. Same applies here, as she is one of the top 10 followed TikTok accounts (1 rung higher than Will Smith. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Checking the sources, the subject seems notable/independent to me. - SUBWAY 23:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability totally independent from her sister: A song that is number one in the charts, a main role in a series. And I don't mention the significant coverage in medias like Fox Biz or Variety. Clearly meets WP:GNG. --Deansfa (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable, from a quick search. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Donaldd23, definitely clears WP:GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Probably a snow keep here. Dixie is one of the most well-known TikTok celebrities, and there's independent coverage of her from Billboard ([1]), Vulture.com ([2]), Insider.com ([3]), Fox Business ([4]), and more. She meets WP:GNG. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Nominator clearly does not understand that this subject has massive significant coverage for many activities independent of her sister and therefore clearly meets WP:GNG. WP:SNOW keep. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just declined a PROD by the same editor, claiming the subject is not notable. The subject clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is not inherited, but there is also no rule saying only one sister in a family can be notable. She meets coverage herself as per the above votes. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notability TikTok personality, thanks to her sister but known independently as well. Also, her single "Be Happy" is a global hit and it cannot be ignored. YairMelamed (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Per above, has enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio 13:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Memorize.AI[edit]

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

Not a notable flashcard app. Not mentioned in the reference in the article, and no references about the app found. Borderline A7. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On the fence on this one. Clearly the article needs to be written up in a way that notability can be demonstrated. Ktin (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest issue is that good sourcing likely doesn't exist. Without significant WP:RS coverage, there is no way to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've used flashcard software, and not really heard of this. There's really not much in the way of inddpendent discussion of it, or reviews from the sort of places you would expect. May be *too soon*. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is quite an extensive article about Supermemo, and another on spaced repetition. Can't parse whether it is promo or notable. I wikilinked Supermemo and put it in the Algorithms category, in case that helps anyone. I personally think it is probably too soon for what, as far as I can tell, is Supermemo3 (?) but I have no strong feelings about this either way. My goal was to get it off the uncategorized list and I thought I wwould comment while here. I did not try to wikilink the more common keywords, like UI and Ai and algorithm. Elinruby (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references that mention the software. The only independent ref does not mention Memorize.AI, and a search turned up a few forum posts but no significant WP:RS coverage. While the concepts (spaced repetition) and algorithms (Supermemo) the app employs may be notable, this is not the only software to use either of these, and their use does not contribute to notability of this software.Dialectric (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacque Gonzales[edit]

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

Only sources are subject's website and Instagram. I have searched for additional sources and could not find any coverage at all to help her pass WP:GNG. I don't think QVC hosts are inherently notable and most of the current hosts do not have articles. Camerafiend (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Camerafiend (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Camerafiend (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If it hasn't referenced any independent coverage after more than a decade, it's probably never going to. The two accounts behind the the major additions to this article also have the hallmarks of connected contributors. —{CrypticCanadian} 01:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Having a website and/or Instagram page doesn't make you notable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Per nom. she does not satisfy notability. Alex-h (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Fails WP:GNG ~ Amkgp 💬 20:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harri Rowe[edit]

Harri Rowe (edit | 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 fails WP:GNG, due to a lack of significant independent coverage, and does not meet WP:NFOOTY, having never played in a fully-professional league or a senior international fixture. Prod was removed by the article creator without reasoning, although the issue was raised at my talk page but provided no compelling reason to avoid deletion. Kosack (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio 13:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shumway, California[edit]

Shumway, 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)

Topos show a small cluster of buildings which resolve out on GMaps to a farmstead with outbuildings. I get lots of hits on people named Shumway but nothing significant on this place. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Cxbrx (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not. Prior to RFD, in rural areas one had to go to the post office to get one's mail, so there were post offices spread pretty thickly over the land in any place that could accommodate them, including people's houses. They had to have a name because that's how the system worked before zip codes, but it didn't mean the place was anything like a town. Isoalted railroad stations, for example, were routine. Mangoe (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds about right, here is a list of the postmasters, most of them are obviously members of the same family. Hut 8.5 10:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have a different opinion about what "legally recognized" means, but it seems like I've not been very successful about convincing others of my view, so I'm changing this to a Weak Keep so as to not block consensus. Cxbrx (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, I don't agree that having a post office necessarily means a place is legally recognised. I am rather astonished at the lengths people will go to in order to keep articles about populated places, with any other topic the type of references linked above would be wholly inadequate to write an article without heading into original research. Hut 8.5 10:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another erroneous GNIS designation. Post offices are not indicators of passing WP:GEOLAND because they are not legal recognition and in the context of a RR station a post office may be tied only to postal rail functions and not to a populated place. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you posted the same delete justification to six different AfDs. By any chance do you have any input in the Is the presence of Post Office sufficient to fulfill legally recognized place? or GEOLAND is self-contradictory – what is a "legally recognized place"? Cxbrx (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did in fact post that intentionally because the same rationale applies. I have no input on GEOLAND but I believe your interpretation is flawed.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinion is divided between merge and keep, with the latter side arguing that the sources for even the idea suffice to establish notability. That's not something I can decide. But since there seems to be no prospect of outright deletion, any future discussion should take the form of a merger discussion on the talk page. Sandstein 19:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Trump[edit]

Fort Trump (edit | 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 exist. WP:NOTNEWS This is about a proposed fort that has been discussed for over a year. It's just an idea that has been floated, and no fort has been approved by any government. — Maile (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters news media quoted a US official as saying on June 10, 2020 “There is no Fort Trump.”1 The Military Times has reported on June 12, 2019 that there will not be such a fort. 2 — Maile (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maile, how is this different from a proposed building project? As long as the sourcing is there, this meets GNG. Yoninah (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yoninah do proposed building projects have an actual plan, and a proposed budget, released to the media? All I see is a president of Poland mentioning in a news conference that Poland would like such a base, and hoping to gain an edge on the possibility by saying they'd name it after the guy who has influence over the Congressional purse strings. And the whole idea seemed to have died when someone asked who would pay for it. If there is one thing we have learned in the last 4 years, it's that what is an "I think we should have ... " one day, becomes old news by the time a new thought passes through someone's head. That, and the fact that some people later deny they ever said such a thing, that something was misquoted, or that the media got it wrong as "Fake News". An American military base in any country is good for that country's economy. But this one appears to not have been much more than wishful thinking. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "And the whole idea seemed to have died when someone asked who would pay for it." I'd dispute that assertion. It's been mentioned in 13 separate articles on Google News-indexed sites in the last ten days and officials from both sides have been recorded by RS as recently as 45 days ago [5] saying negotiations are continuing. Chetsford (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like that alternative a lot. — Maile (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose merge per WP:MERGEREASON. Chetsford (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sourcing currently in the article looks to pass GNG, the coverage is also lasting. Hog Farm Bacon 19:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The GNG creates the presumption that a topic is worth including, but it specifically states that other considerations from WP:NOT may lead to exclusion even for topics that otherwise have sufficient sourcing. So while this is a topic that has certainly been covered in reliable, independent, secondary sources, it is still not appropriate for inclusion because it is essentially a news report. The base does not exist; it's not even clear that the base will exist. All of the content is essentially unrelated to "Fort Trump", and only uses it as a coat rack for general information on US-Polish military relations since 2020. What's salvageable can be merged to Poland–United States relations, but this is essentially a POV fork that gives undue coverage to a recent event. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think even from an historical viewpoint, the effort to build a permanent base in Poland for US troops is a notable event and something worth have a Wikipedia page on for people researching such things, even if it isn't built, the developments surrounding its plan to be built and the change in strategic focus is notable information. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Poland–United States relations, which includes coverage of military cooperation. BD2412 T 03:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I would have no problem with this option. — Maile (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record as a Keep !voter (but not speaking on behalf of all Keepers), I oppose this based on our WP:DUP guidance which notes that Merging should be avoided if the resulting article would be too long or clunky. The discrete length of the proposed merge-to article would be overwhelmed by the merger of an article of this size that has the potential to continue to grow. Chetsford (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that the whole article need not be reprinted in the target page. In this case, a one-line sentence would probably be enough. Yoninah (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect if it ever happens page can/will be created but currently its nothing. Mztourist (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Even if it doesnt get built, there is already coverage of it. Denzil1963 (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are all sorts of proposals for international agreements that have yet to be finalized or are only in discussion phases that, due to coverage, pass WP:GNG. Here are a few examples: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, Multilateral Agreement on Investment, Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, Beilin–Abu Mazen agreement, Convention of Chuenpi, etc. As per the article, this is not only (and potentially even less) a literal proposal for a fort, but the colloquial name used to refer to a proposed strategic repositioning of U.S. military forces to Poland and bilateral military framework between the U.S. and Poland. Finally, since the term "Fort Trump" is frequently invoked in media reports without further context, it's reasonable to assume our readers may search for it. With the GNG threshold crested there's, therefore, no policy-based reason for a redirect. The merge proposal is unworkable as the volume of preservable content in this article would easily overwhelm the current Poland-U.S. relations article and would be inconsistent with the commonly accepted guidance described by WP:MERGEREASON. Chetsford (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford I think it is a given that as the article creator, you would want to keep this. But just because a term is bandied about in the news media, does not automatically qualify it to be an article in Wikipedia. This fort does not exist at this point. Your arguments above, while sincere, amount to a news report. Not only is this an article about something that does not exist, it's about something that never will exist. — Maile (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Maile. I appreciate your detailed response. In surrebuttal:
  • amount to a news report Per our WP:NOTNEWS policy, Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. This is a subject that has received significant, verifiable coverage in RS spanning a period of three years and is, therefore, not covered by NOTNEWS.
  • This fort does not exist at this point. This is not a policy-based argument so I can't address it directly. However, we frequently cover proposed agreements, compacts, and treaties under discussion if they meet our WP:GNG. See all examples I cited above. Also, based on your references to "this fort", I believe you may not understand the subject of the article. This is not an article about "a fort". This is an article about a bilateral defense framework that is colloquially referred to by the proposed name of a base that would be included in it.
Chetsford (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In response to a recent addition to the OP [6] by the nom, I'd like to make a responsive note that I'm threading new here for ease of readability. Reuters news media quoted a US official as saying “There is no Fort Trump.” Three days after Reuters reported that it issued a new report [7] quoting a different US official that there would be a "Fort Trump". In Dark Matter we include reports of those who say it does not exist, and those who say it does. These are entirely appropriate subjects for discussion on the article's Talk page. They don't demonstrate how an article meets our deletion policy. Chetsford (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford one thing you and I have illustrated here, is that there is much confusing and conflicting source information on this subject matter. Bear in mind that there needs to be funding to get this off the ground. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. After all the puffery and false information (about every subject imaginable) that has flown about in the last 4 years, I think Wikipedia would do well on this one to hold off. Later down the road, if Congress votes for funding to establish such a base - or funding is signed off on elsewhere - then it can be an article. Right now, it's just chatter in the wind.
I have concerns about a pattern we've seen repeated over the last 3+ years, or even 4 years back to the previous election, is that the individual involved here has himself been the source of much confusing information, often putting others (including foreign dignitaries) up to publicly dropping his name into the conversation in hopes of gaining favor or getting something they want that the public is not informed about. We don't know what conversation ensued between the two individuals before they walked out to that press conference. Right now, the fort is not a reality as of this date. — Maile (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After all the puffery and false information (about every subject imaginable) that has flown about in the last 4 years, I think Wikipedia would do well on this one to hold off. In general, I like the proposal you've made to adopt a higher threshold than the GNG for American Politics articles. If you propose this at the Village Pump I will most certainly support it. That said, the proposal you're making (which, as I read it, is that we should delete just to be careful due to a pattern of superfluous articles on related topics) is not currently supported by any existing policy and the middle of an AfD isn't the venue to adopt new policies. Deleting an article and erasing knowledge can only be done on WP in response to a fairly limited set of circumstances and we should delete an article because the individual involved here has himself been the source of much confusing information, often putting others (including foreign dignitaries) up to publicly dropping his name into the conversation in hopes of gaining favor or getting something they want that the public is not informed about is not one of those circumstances. Chetsford (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This proposed Fort has generated a lot of RS coverage and interest, and there is no requirement that a project actually be realised and built for it to satisfy GNG. I don't think a redirect to Poland US relations is an appropriate target for this either. It is not that significant in the context of that page, but also has other significance which isn't to do with bilateral relations between the two countries. I don't see a good reason why the coverage of this notable proposal should not reside exactly where it is.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has plenty of RS's to meet GNG. Plus it's not exactly uncommon for us to have articles on planned works, even if they don't come to fruition. And indeed we do have several articles on "non-existant" things Father Pat Noise for example, so there is no issue on that front. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Covered in multiple reliable secondary sources. Whether or not it has actually been built or not is irrelevant. Citobun (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect --evrik (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio 14:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Boadi[edit]

Michael Boadi (edit | 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. No evidence of notability, orphan article, considerable editing from users with similar names to the subject or claiming a connection. No RS coverage of this Michael Boadi in the article or in a WP:BEFORE. In fact, I was surprised how few general search results there were for just the name (under 80). David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuele Curcio[edit]

Emanuele Curcio (edit | 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. A previous PROD was contested but the article hasn't improved since, no sources have been added. A BEFORE search suggests sources don't exist. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 19:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 19:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Passes WP:NPOL and WP:GNG as highlighted in discussion. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 20:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fitch Poole[edit]

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

Article about a "journalist, humorist and politician", not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for any of those occupations. This basically just documents that he existed, while providing no evidence that he ever accomplished anything that would make his existence noteworthy (it even completely fails to explain what he ever did to earn the "politician" label at all) -- and it is referenced entirely to primary sources (directories, the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, user-generated genealogy trees) that are not support for notability, with not even one reliable or independent source shown to establish that his work has ever been externally deemed significant by anybody he wasn't professionally or personally related to. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio 14:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khashayiar[edit]

Khashayiar (edit | 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 WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as clearing WP:NMUSIC. This essentially just states that he and his work exist, without documenting any specific accomplishments that would actually pass any items in NMUSIC's checklist -- for example, it calls him "iconic", but fails to document any specific markers of iconicity (e.g. noteworthy music awards). And the "sources" are his own record label, an online music store and the general results page of a Google search, none of which are reliable sources that constitute support for notability at all. As always, we're not just looking for sources which demonstrate that he exists -- we're looking for sources which demonstrate that he accomplished something which got him independent media attention, and nothing like that is shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Time[edit]

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

GNG fail. The sourcing here is sketchy: event announcements, primary source for the exhibition, and articles in what look to be custom promotional content sites (artslooker.com and odessajournal.com). Created by a now blocked sock who promoted Ryabchenko artists across several wikis. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article fails—in my mind—the WP:GNG test (and possibly WP:NOT, as well). The site itself is very pretty, but appears to essentially be a collection of various artists' work, along with their own descriptions of it. The former is fine, but the latter became problematic for Wikipedia when the StrangeTime website was cited as a source in several WP articles some (now blocked for SPI & COI) accounts were promoting (as part of some broader advertising scheme, perhaps?). I have no connection to the site, nor to the artists and their promotors; I stumbled across the whole thing when I was checking the addition of an "artist's conception" image to a technical article about a computer virus. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 17:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A non-notable online art show. The article seems more about promoting the organizer. RUNOFTHEMILL event with nothing that distinguishes it from the hundreds of thousands of other art events. Netherzone (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zetafax[edit]

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

(Was prodded/deprodded years ago). Article about one product from a non-notable company. The only news article about it is a Forbes piece reviewing five different fax products. B (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. B (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 23:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has been around for a long time, and faxes have dwindled in importance since then. (I just removed a market-penetration claim from the page that has been in <citation needed> status for years, and is almost certainly incorrect now.) Thanks! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 16:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject lacks proper sourcing that establishes notability, and the article reads more like a promotional blurb than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep with no prejudice towards renaming and/or merging it. I don't quite find a merge consensus from these participants, though there might be if editors of merge targets participated. An editor can BOLDLY attempt a rename or participate in a formal move discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Army Committees[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG for a stand alone article. Content should be trimmed/ce and merged into Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies   // Timothy :: talk  04:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per my above nom.   // Timothy :: talk  04:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Also currently at an impossibly generic title, and if kept, will need to be moved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Soldiers' Committees to cover the entire area of 'committees' in the Russian Imperial Army beyond just the field army-level version. The committees were distinct organizations from the Petrograd Soviet and an important factor in the disintegration of the Russian Imperial Army during the Revolution. For example, Allan K. Wildman devotes an entire chapter to them in The End of the Russian Imperial Army and there is much discussion in Reese, The Russian Imperial Army, 1796-1917. There are also articles mentioning them, for example, Werth, Russia 1917: The Soldiers' Revolution. As can be seen from the Russian wikipedia article, there were also at least two books written about them by Soviet historians. The level of English-language academic treatment of these committees shows that they are independently notable. Kges1901 (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Rename to Soldiers' committees (Russian Revolution). Too generic otherwise and not a proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I agree with nom that's not enough here for a stand-alone article. Since the events here are confined within the scope of the Russian Army and within 1917, another merge target might be Russian Army (1917). Also agree that the title is too generic and if kept should be "Soldiers' Committees (1917)" or something else more specific. --Lockley (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do think the scope should be expanded perhaps Soldiers' and Sailors' committees (Russian Revolution) or Revolutionary committees in the Russian military (1917). I did some more looking and found this Military Revolutionary Committee (name is still too generic). The article Russian Army (1917) also opens up some interesting possibilities. (I withdrew my merge target suggestion above because better options have been metioned)   // Timothy :: talk  23:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Soldiers' committees and alter the article to match. This term is used in two of the sources cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Strictly speaking the merge-versus-rename debate should happen on the talk page, but since there's already substantial engagement here, it seems a shame to waste that effort. Relisting to allow further discussion of this question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per Necrothesp. There are already article with a similar scope in other, arguably less-notable, historical contexts, eg Workers' Councils in Poland. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (varying from vote above) Rename, per Necrothesp. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename. I think this is the consensus here, the question is what name? One other item for the merge discussion would be, since these committees often included soldiers and sailors, should the scope be expanded to include sailors? (I can see both sides of this argument).   // Timothy :: talk  17:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tshego[edit]

Tshego (edit | 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. I researched the claims of reaching "gold" however it's a meaningless claim as there is no body certifying it and it is in fact based on comments from the subject himself. Nothing else has charted and after a cleanup and removal of gossip and non-rs we are left with no actual coverage in the article's sources nor any others I can find. Oh and the claim of being signed to Universal Music Group cannot be verified - the only sources that reported this were literally one published by the subject and press releases from the subject. Praxidicae (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. Fails WP:NMUSIC and should've never been accepted from AfD AfC. -- Dane talk 17:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dane, You mean AFC Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks!! Fixed!! -- Dane talk 17:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet any of our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a non-notable rapper. Couldn't find anything reliable about him, just the usual junk sites like Spotify, Deezer, SoundCloud, Apple Music, Facebook etc. The only thing that is halfway acceptable is an interview - but the reliability of the site looks dubious at best. Rest of the results are not about him, as usual. So to summarize, he is just another of those musicians who are still up-and-coming, and haven't been noticed by notable media. Being on social media pages and streaming sites still does not establish any notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No real agreement here, vastly differing strong opinions among the !voters Eddie891 Talk Work 19:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Smith (DJ)[edit]

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

Although on a national station and a few local radio stations, there is nothing to suggest notability. This areticle doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria - Funky Snack (Talk) 06:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- Although it doesn't have much references to it but those refs which are there in the article are Sufficient enough to pass GNG. Dtt1Talk 07:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added another reference and whilst it could do with further references there's no reason to delete this article and the references are varied enough to pass GNG. Rillington (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page about the veteran BBC DJ Tim Smith, who has been the lucky recipient of an abundance of reliable references. Buster Reynolds (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the references sufficient enough to pass GNG? They are all primary sources...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consequent to my previous close and move of this article to Draft:Tim Smith (DJ), there has been substantial discussion in deletion review and improvement to the draft; I am therefore reverting my close and relisting for further discussion, pursuant to these improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 16:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This was relisted following this deletion review discussion. ~ mazca talk 18:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The many sources suggest he is notable. Even if he is really annoying. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY - the expansion shows that we should keep this article. And as Martin has worked out, this is the guy who has read the "factoids" on the most popular British radio station for 20 years. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to Steve Wright in the Afternoon. Is anyone actually looking at the sources? He works at BBC, so the BBC channel listings and page do not establish notability. I mean, nearly all of these are just channel listings and do not actually discuss Smith in depth.. the exception is his 'personal' page, but again, he's an employee - of course he's going to get a page. He gets the most passing possible mention in a radiotoday article ("other members of the posse including Tim Smith")... this does not establish notability. A listing in a chart in a book about radio (it literally lists his name on a schedule, it does not discuss him in any detail whatsoever).. then there are more listings of his podcast(s), including a listing of his podcast on Apple Podcasts. Riva Media is associated with him and the cite is promotional. The Bae Systems corporate blog post is promoting Bae systems (look, Tim Smith talked to someone at Bae). None of these are independent, in-depth sources. None of these sources establish notability. Should redirect to the show he is apparently associated with. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 20:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DJs are hard to classify under the various entertainment and music SNGs, but I see adequate indicia of notability based upon multiple jobs on various programs and long-term. If sporadic coverage. this guy was significant in the pre-google days, so there’s the possibility of expansion from old print archives. Montanabw(talk) 23:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per BD2412's initial close. As El Cid notes in their excellent analysis of the sources, we don't have anything to show a pass of WP:GNG here. (I did a WP:BEFORE-style search and couldn't find anything either. Quick note: the BBC isn't a homogeneous entity, so it's possible that some BBC sources—a BBC News article, say—might be sufficiently editorially independent of BBC Radio to count towards GNG. But what we've got is stuff to do with Radio 2, which clearly isn't independent.) On the other hand, by the admittedly-subjective standard of "I've heard of this guy", it seems weird that sources don't exist, and, as Montanabw notes, he has had a long and varied career that doesn't rule out sources existing somewhere, in print media, say. However, to quote BD's initial close, neither does policy permit the article to remain in mainspace with no secondary sources and no indication that such sources exist. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as per the initial closing or Redirect. There is no in-depth coverage in independent RS in the article whatsoever. Of the 11 sources 5 are from the BBC his employer, 2 are links to his own podcast, 1 is his profile on his agent's page, 1 is a link to BAE for a podcast he made for them. So that's 9 out of 11 that are affiliated. Of the remaining 2, one is from an unsigned 6 sentence obit' that says this about him "Joyce Frost was a regular on the Big Show for many years, appearing alongside other members of the posse including Tim Smith..." and the last is a radio studies text book dating from 2013 that lists him on a figure describing the 1st hour of the Steve Wright Show. GNG is most definitely not shown to have been met. The keep !votes seem to say "keep because I can't believe that this guy is not notable even if the sources don't point to it". I could find nothing else in a search possibly due to his very common name. If had made an impact on the profession there should be coverage of him somewhere, I can't even find anything said about him by his colleagues. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be full of woolly generalities that don’t make sense. What specific facts in the article do you think are wrong or biased? FWIW I was shopping on Wednesday and heard Tim Smith on the radio going on about Groucho Marx’s birthday for some reason.Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've totally lost me there I'm afraid. There are no sources to show he meets GNG...nothing woolly about that. I didn't say there was anything wrong or biased...are you sure you are replying to my !vote? Dom from Paris (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every source in the article is reliable and independent, per PainProf's remark below. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333 I don't think this holds water:
Source assessment by YorkshireLad
Source assessment table: prepared by User:YorkshireLad
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/presenters/tim-smith/ No Promotional page for the show he worked on. Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/3yssC5F34mYrcJCmCgsDsw8/tim-smith No As above Yes Yes ✘ No
https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/radio1/england/1989-04-01 Yes Although this is a BBC website, it's showing listings from Radio Times which was by this point editorially independent. Yes No Routine rogramme listing, no detail at all ✘ No
https://radiotoday.co.uk/2016/11/steve-wright-shows-old-woman-passes-away/ Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CgncCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Yes Yes No Just mentions his name in a diagram ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00m9d4b No Listing on BBC Radio for his programme Yes No Routine listing of programme ✘ No
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/tim-smiths-golf-talk/id435091825 No Download page for his podcast on iTunes ? Information supplied by his production team ~ Some details about him. ✘ No
http://www.premiumaudio.co.uk/podcasts/ No The company that produces his podcast ? A company writing about itself No Just a picture of Tim Smith ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bsvntx No Programme listing for a programme he was on Yes No Routine listing ✘ No
https://www.rivamedia.co.uk/tim-smith No His agency, I think No Not by Wikipedia's definition of there being editorial control, though I'm not questioning the factual accuracy Yes ✘ No
https://www.baesystems.com/en/blog/farnborough-airshow-audio-blog No About the podcast Tim Smith hosted on behalf of BAE Systems ? Not clear how much editorial oversight No Not about him, about an airshow ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
So I think only three sources are reliable and independent, and they're all just passing mentions. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333 fix failed ping. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent analysis. I left the UK in the early 90s when Wright was still on Radio 1 so have never heard of this guy. Maybe if I'd listened to him every day I would be convinced he should be notable but I haven't so I can only go by the sources which do not support notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This only tells you one (maybe two) editor's opinions and not why a particular source is or is not unsuitable. That you only mention Radio 1 (he's been on Radio 2 mostly daily for the past 20 years, as noted and cited in the article) suggests you need to read what the sources say and not worry about rules, regulations and quantity of text. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought that when notability guidelines are not met then GNG applies and notability in an AFD has to be shown using sources and not what is written in the article. If we should be assuming notability from his career then maybe create a guideline for radio DJs. I know Wright is on radio 2 from the article but as I said I have never listened to his show so I have never heard of Tim Smith so I'm not influenced by my personal opinion and can only base my opinion on the sources as I try to do with all AFD. And BTW about half a dozen or so of my close relatives (father, mother, brother, uncle, cousins etc) work/ed in television and radio including the BBC other national radios and regional and national television and from personal experience I am not at all convinced by the argument that the different BBC sources are independent of each other. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333 Meanwhile, I have listened to him on Radio 2, as it happens (I used to listen to Steve Wright in the Afternoon daily in 2014), and I did read what the sources say, which is how I did the assessment above. Obviously it's an opinion, but I don't understand how I haven't explained why I don't think the sources are suitable for establishing notability—could you explain why you think they are suitable, or how you'd justify the statement that they're independent of the subject? (I think they'd be appropriate to include in an article for referencing if the article could be shown to be notable, I should say, but that doesn't up toa WP:GNG pass.) YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it's very challenging to provide reliable sources given the name is very common. When I searched my university database I get several hundred entries for the Guardian's radio pages. Some of which from abstract are more in depth but online copies weren't available so I can't verify that. Probably a non insignificant number of people know who this is to the extent a who is this article is fine. The BBC is reliable enough for this bio detail. Without a doubt more un-indexed sources exist. PainProf (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NEXIST is not an argument to keep in an AFD. He has been around for 30 years and is still active if the sources existed why can no one find them? The keep !voters are generally very experienced editors and they haven't been able to add find them. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"they haven't been able to add find them" - that's not true, we have, but I think both sides of the debate are exhibiting belief bias and confusing opinions with policy ("significant coverage" is a subjective term that can mean different things to different people). Therefore I don't think there's any point discussing this further and we should wait for an uninvolved admin to close this as "no consensus". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wow! I wish I'd never put this up as an AfD if I knew it would have caused so much upset. Let me explain my reasoning as to why I nominated this page for deletion. Although Tim is on the radio, this doesn't automatically mean he warrants an article. Even a Redirect to Steve Wright In The Afternoon would suffice. As far as I'm concerned (along with other editors) the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. As I've said before, someone just because someone is on a national radio station, doesn't make them notable. My nomination still stands. - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Ritchie 333, the subject meets our guidelines and the article has improved and expanded Wm335td (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. First of all, I have to discount Richiepip's keep – the fact that Deathlibrarian changed his vote means it is now lacks any arguments supporting it – and Oleryhlolsson's, since his argument is not policy-based. Examining the remaning, policy-based arguments, there is consensus that the article subject lacks notability. Salvio 14:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Calixta of Lippe[edit]

Princess Calixta of Lippe (edit | 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 topic, an obscure princess, does not pass WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. She has attracted virtually no coverage in reliable sources. The grisly anecdote of her burying her husband is sourced to a self-published website. Looking her up online did not return any proof of notability. Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not much on google, *however* she comes up a lot on Google books, (somestimes as Princess Calixta Agnes of Lippe) mentioned quite a lot in various books about royalty and to a lesser degree, history. Seems to be a minor royal, and descendent of Queen victoria. I've added a few references to the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can see "a lot" is rather misleading since it is nearly exclusively genealogy publications. It does not seem to be "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. For example, in the book you cited, she is mentioned only in one sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Surtsicna I agree - she does get mentioned in a number of sources, but in fact, it's not really significant mentions. I've changed my vote. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it well-documented? It is sourced to a blog. Surtsicna (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE. WP:BEFORE didn't show anything that addressed the subject directly and indepth. Sources 1, 2, and 5 are blogs that do not meet WP:V (WP:QS, WP:SPS) for editorial oversight. Sources 3, 4 do not address the subject directly or indepth. The claim of WP:N is entirely based on WP:INHERITED.   // Timothy :: talk  17:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A most intriguing story. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio 14:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karaj Randhawa[edit]

Karaj Randhawa (edit | 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 singer who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER. A before search mostly links me to user generated sources & other unreliable sources. Celestina007 16:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 16:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 16:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 16:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 16:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 21:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No consensus for merging or redirecting, but that can be done by anyone as an edit subject to BRD. Salvio 14:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Letitia Mumford Geer[edit]

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

Conpletely non-notable. Qwirkle (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. [8] is all I could find. It looks quasi-reliable, but I'm not prepared to vote either way based on it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing is not even close to establishing notability. Receiving a patent is not in any way, shape, means or form a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Johnpacklambert. 0qd (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: she crops up in quite a few listings of "things you didn't know were invented by women", though sometimes credited with inventing the medical syringe in entirety. I can't access this one from UK but the Google hits record shows: " In 1899, Letitia Greer (1852-1935) invented a medical syringe that ... Greer was a registered nurse, and it took 13 years for her patent to be ...", which sounds promising.Even if we don't have a lot of info, the very fact, solidly sourced, that she patented a valuable refinement, rather than the whole thing, will be useful info for readers who follow her up from one of the over-enthusiastic pieces about her. PamD 13:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting that we source articles to gee-whiz lists that are obviously wrong on many, perhaps most, of their contentions? (And, worst of all, from some perspectives, you are suggesting that we use sources that are obviously wiki-circular?)

Next, there is absolutely no evidence that she invented “a valuable refinement”. Her invention...or, rather, repurposing, is just one of many ways to make a single-handed enema syringe. It isn’t used now, and it may have never been.

Your third source is a high school science teacher, writing in a small local paper, or a blog associated with it, who appears to believe that insulin is normally delivered rectally. That doesn’t exactly reek of authority. Here’s an excerpt from one of the “sources” used: “It is said that once in 1882, Maria Beasely took a look out at the sea from her room’s window and said, “People should, like, stop dying in huge transportation disasters.” She was a famous scientist of her times, and is the woman behind the creation of Lift Raft, a machine that makes barrels. Due to this creation, she earned a lot of money and became a millionaire in shorter timeframe.“ Yeah, that’s scholarship. Qwirkle (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or failing that, redirect to Syringe#Historical_timeline and add her invention there, well sourced, with dates etc. and allowing redirects, surname page entry, to continue. PamD 13:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If anyone would like the content userfied for merging / reappropriating with a different article, let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Pearce[edit]

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

New page review: this article has been collecting tags for months but nobody seems to want to pass it as reviewed. The subject doesn’t seem notable to me but there may be North American sources I can’t access so bringing it here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I placed the notability tags on the article on 25th June, after going through it and doing a thorough websearch, and watchlisted it for review later. Some sources have been added subsequently by @Thivierr:. In my view, subject still fails WP:COMPOSER and GNG. (I couldn't verify The Hamilton Spectator link, as I don't have access to it, but I doubt the notability concerns would be addressed by this alone) - hako9 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/re-purpose to Toy Piano Composers (I'd say merge, but there's no target yet). Remove all the poorly sourced content, which leaves a one-paragraph stub about TPC, which is notable per GNG. Spectator, like torontoguardian is more about TPC than Pearce. In future, with better sourcing, a stand-alone bio could be spun-out. One or more other names in the TPC could redirect here also. Deleting the content, so that nobody can see it, and nobody can improve or re-purpose it, would be counterproductive.   --Rob (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve had a look for sources on the Toy Piano Composers and they don’t seem notable as a group either. I see a bit about them talking about themselves, but that’s about it. Mccapra (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stubbify. I think [9] this book from Rowman & Littlefield, added to the coverage above and in the article, is enough for GNG. Participants here may be interested in the discussion I just started at RSN about Toronto Guardian, which doesn't look super reliable to me. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Google books view won’t let me see the text in this source, but whatever it is is clearly sourced to a Q&A with the subject herself, so again, does not help establish notability. Mccapra (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I'm now a weak delete. I see some hits (the article in the Hamilton Spectator listed in the further reading section, for one), but they are thin at best. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-notable Right now she appears to be NN, since Toronto Guardian is deemed unreliable at RSN. The R&L book does have a short paragraph on her, but that's not enough on its own. (Also, it describes her as WP:UPANDCOMING—generally a sign of non-notability). Could be merged, redirected, or deleted. Perhaps the company is notable, I did not evaluate that. (t · c) buidhe 08:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ASGC Construction Group[edit]

ASGC Construction 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)

This is a well disguised advert. Many of the references are regurgitated press releases and PR material. This is WP:BOMBARD If it can be rescued, so be it, but adverts have no place on Wikipedia. I have not done a 100% reference check The sample check shows SEO style regurgitated PR and fluff and clutter. There is a great detemrmination to move this into article space. This appears to be a copy and paste move. There are several queued up behind it. Salt, please. Fiddle Faddle 15:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 15:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus here is that NHOCKEY and GNG are not met. Discussions about changing notability guidelines should take place elsewhere Eddie891 Talk Work 12:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Beikirch[edit]

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

Was a prod that was removed saying NHOCKEY didn't override GNG. That is true, however, looking at the subject all the sources on the page except one are not independent or are passing mentions. A search of google has not provided any other sources so the subject fails WP:GNG for lack of sources in addition to failing WP:NHOCKEY. DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for hockey coaches.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I proposed it for deletion with the understanding that it failed both GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. I apologize if it came across as if I assumed N:HOCKEY superseded GNG. Although there is one in-depth article on her written by the now-GM of the Toronto Six, she still doesn't meet GNG. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged to her Everipedia page. Thanks, it needed an update before Google index. Hmlarson (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She played on a championship team at the highest level of women's professional ice hockey in the US. Her name is inscribed on the championship cup. This, along with the article on her, should make her notable. PMCH2 (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • PMCH2, she doesn't pass WP:NHOCKEY so the first part of your comment is void. Arguments for keep will have to be based on references. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability on Wikipedia requires multiple in depth sources to be met in order to meet the WP:GNG, this usually translates to a minimum of three. Unfortunately she falls short of that. As much as I would like women's hockey to be covered more in the media, and believe me I do, it just isn't. A good example is the professional team in Boston (a hockey/sports crazy town) won the championship and the local paper didn't even have a single article on the local team winning the league championship. That pretty much sums up the state of professional women's hockey. The top level of women's hockey is still amateur where Olympic players still get fairly decent coverage relatively speaking. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m ambivalent about the deletion of this particular bio but I think the discussion here and recent discussions on the Women's ice hockey task force talk page demonstrate that there’s a schism regarding how women’s ice hockey is regulated on Wikipedia. It would be best for us to be address these differences in perspective before the situation deteriorates.
    First, the suggestion that there is no coverage of women’s ice hockey in North America appears to be several years out of date and is easily disproven with a quick google (the name of the team you were referencing may be the “Boston Pride” and the Boston Globe wrote about the Pride and the 2020 NWHL playoffs, as did many other news agencies). Women’s ice hockey has turned a corner in North America, particularly since the NWHL began streaming on Twitch in 2019, and the league’s expansion to Toronto has only ramped up interest. At a certain point, removing articles about women’s ice hockey players for not being notable is a self-fulfilling prophecy; the information gleaned from Wikipedia bios is used by news organizations to determine who and what to write about. We can’t expect every journalist to be familiar with the subject and the dearth of information about women’s ice hockey on Wikipedia may be actively limiting the amount of journalistic coverage it recieves.
    Second, there appears to be a total disregard for women’s ice hockey occurring outside of North America, which has remarkably good coverage in several countries. Most notable is the coverage of the SDHL in Sweden, which is quite good and articles regularly appear in the Aftonbladet, Dalarnas Tidningar publications, and the Göteborgs-Posten, among others. The SDHL also holds the distinction of having the most internationally-varied rosters, with players joining from the top leagues around the world, including the NCAA, Naisten Liiga, ZhHL, DFEL, SWHL A, etc. The league’s coverage must be close to that of several of the leagues listed in the third tier of NHOCKEY (looking at you Beneliga and Belarusian Extraleague).
    As an aside, several of the top women’s leagues (NWHL, ZhHL, SDHL, etc.) are semi-professional, not amateur. Referring to these leagues as amateur is both semantically flawed and implies a lack of respect that I am sure was not intended.
    I hope that, through further discussion, we will be able to find common ground and better understanding. –Spitzmauskc (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I too would like to encourage writers to write more about women's hockey being that I am a hockey fan and more hockey is always good. Wikipedia actively says it is not here to give exposure to something/someone we feel should be getting it that isn't per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Our job here is to record what media/sources are already reporting on. Not what they should be reporting on. And as a side note, I never said no coverage, I said there wasn't enough coverage. As for semi-professional vs amateur, not sure where anyone mentioned that. But I would note, in North America anyway semi-professional is generally considered more amateur than professional, its why we usually use the term "fully professional" on Wikipedia for some of the sports criteria. For example the Canadian Hockey League gives a stipend to its players so to the NCAA it is considered semi-professional, but you would be hard pressed to find anyone outside of the administrators of the NCAA call it anything but amateur. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I live in Boston and read the Boston Globe. The suggestion that the Globe doesn't cover women's hockey is completely inaccurate. Boston is a major market with FIVE other major professional teams, and it STILL has a professional women's ice hockey team which receives some coverage. More importantly, the college game IS extensively covered in the Globe. [10] [11] [12] As is the Women's Beanpot, including the most recent 2020 game. [13]. Here is a recent article about Meghan Duggan. [14]. Here is an article on the pay gap between men and women's pro players. [15]. Here are Globe article on Women's Olympics [16] [17] [18] [19][20] EVERY 2018 Olympic game that the US women's team played was covered by the GLOBE!!! -— Preceding unsigned comment added by PMCH2 (talk • contribs)
  • I didn't say that Boston never covered women's hockey. I mentioned a specific event that they didn't cover. Winning the league championship. Not covering what would in any other sport be considered the most newsworthy event in a sport goes a long way to showing how under the radar and not notable to the media something is. I also mentioned Olympic coverage was good, so not sure what you are trying to show me by mentioning the Olympic coverage. It is specifically professional coverage that is lacking in regards to articles about specific players as opposed to leagues or routine game coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a very clear delete as she fails to pass WP:GNG. To the activists now writing in this, routine sports repotting is not enough to satisfy the GNG and articles must be about the subject of the review. This is not a place to right your perceived wrongs with the world. Deadman137 (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am arguing that the notability standard for professional athletes could be considered to apply for this particular athlete. The Notability (sports) page says: "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." She has played for a championship team at the highest professional level in the US. I am aware that others may not consider the NWHL to confer notability and it is not currently included in WP:NHOCKEY. I am suggesting that this be re-considered. It is relevant to the discussion. PMCH2 (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Get this through your head, a deletion discussion is not the place for this. Also, given that your argument against deletion is rooted in bad faith against the ice hockey WikiProject and the rest of it is debarred by WP:NOT, there is no point in engaging with you any further. Deadman137 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is the general criteria for sports that don't have a section below it on that page. Because hockey has a more specific section below hockey players follow it. There was actually a discussion recently on that section reaffirming that was how it works. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She doesn't meet the existing criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. More importantly, my search didn't find the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. Routine sports coverage is not enough and this is the wrong forum to argue about changing an existing SNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olanrewaju Oladunjoye[edit]

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

Possible UPE article where subject of article is a non notable “politician” , “entrepreneur” & “sportsman” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search turns up empty & even in the sources presented in the article, almost all the sources do not even discuss subject. Celestina007 14:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 14:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 14:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 14:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 14:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 14:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 14:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 19:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Oluwanishola Cup, which he founded, garnered significant attention in Nigeria through the years, proven by the coverage of The Guardian and involvement of the State Assembly and other international brands as partners. His involvement in public gatherings in the State proves his significance in the area. More citations to be added.Aesyeo (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The editor above is the article creator. Celestina007 08:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and is now blocked. MER-C 12:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that this is a UPE article. MER-C 12:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Village, Rio de Janeiro[edit]

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

No evidence this neighborhood exists -- no sources, no results on Google search, nothing of this name at the coordinates on maps. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have absolutely no idea how to conduct an effective search for this, but the fact that there is no article in ptwiki seems pretty strong evidence that this is not a thing. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very hard to search for because there are a lot of mentions of "village" relating to Rio de Janeiro, but since it's completely unsourced, has no corresponding article in the Portuguese Wikipedia, and doesn't show up on mapping services at the claimed coordinates it's fair to assume it doesn't exist until proven otherwise. The burden of proof for showing this is on those who want to keep or restore the content. Hut 8.5 11:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to qualify for speedy delete. Glendoremus (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like a hoax, but in any event, does not meet WP:GEOLAND as an unofficial neighbourhood (according to the article) which fails to meet WP:GNG. --Dps04 (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Singh-Ray[edit]

Singh-Ray (edit | 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 manufacturer of photographic filters. All the hits in RS are technical descriptions of a photo (e.g., "taken with a Singh-Ray filter"). Tagged for notability since 2009. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when the sourcing is the organization's own website and a blog they run there is no sign at all of significant coverage and no reason to have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Alexander of Hesse and by Rhine (1933–1937) and Prince Ludwig of Hesse and by Rhine[edit]

Prince Alexander of Hesse and by Rhine (1933–1937) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prince Ludwig of Hesse and by Rhine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are somewhat morbid examples of genealogical entries. The subjects were the children of public figures who died in an accident aged 4 and 6, respectively. There is no significant coverage as required by WP:BASIC and WP:GNG nor can there realistically be any: they are known exclusively for the accident (WP:BLP1E) and their relationship to adult figures (WP:INVALIDBIO). The content of the articles is identical, and they are also very similar to the recently deleted article about their likewise short-lived sister. All the information about their lives and deaths are already found in the articles about their parents, who died with them, and that should suffice. Surtsicna (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable 4-year-old killed in a plane crash.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 19:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cyberpower678:: The AfD can be processed as normal (it will be discussed by Wikipedians, and maybe the article will be deleted by an admin), as it is correctly transcluded onto the daily log page. I assume your message means it can't be automatically added to User:Cyberbot I/Current AfD's, but that is not a core function of AfD, and not a good reason to put a warning message here that could be read as "this AfD won't be closed and the article won't be deleted unless the header is edited in certain ways". Could you amend your message please? Thank you, —Kusma (t·c) 20:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, main claim of notability is involvement in the plane crash, and their unnamed newborn sibling seems to have a more prominent role in that. —Kusma (t·c) 20:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable. Nika2020 (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect both to their father, Georg Donatus, Hereditary Grand Duke of Hesse. A couple of months ago, there was a deletion discussion for their younger sister; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Johanna of Hesse and by Rhine, who was not on the plane that crashed, but died in childhood due to meningitis. The result of that discussion was also to redirect. Due to these boys' short lives, there is nothing to say about them that wouldn't be covered in the article about one of their parents. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable --Devokewater@ 23:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom,non notable people.Smeat75 (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and yes redirect to the father. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As of Prince Ludwig of Hesse and by Rhine his notability is mentioned in the article "He was the first great-great-great-grandchild of Queen Victoria". Only one person can be this, and as it is it happens to be Prince Ludwig of Hesse and by Rhine. And for this nomination in general it's improper, since it suggests "The content of the articles is identical" which they are not. Therefore this is from the beginning a biased and improper nomination. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just genealogical trivia. He has not received significant coverage for being anyone's "first great-great-great-grandchild". Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The nom covered this very well. The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that cover anything directly and indepth about this individual because they have done absolutely nothing notable. Being related to a public figure is not notable WP:INVALIDBIO WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY of non-notable members in royal families.   // Timothy :: talk  04:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to his father's article. I would not oppose a merger to his father's article, but his death has been extensively covered in books and in The Crown. Bearian (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vilant Systems[edit]

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

A non-notable firm, now part of Turck. All the hits I found were in press releases or namedrops in trade journals. I don't think it makes sense to merge to Turck because there's nothing substantive to merge, and I don't think it makes sense to redirect to Turck because they're not similar enough that a redirect is warranted. So I suggest deleting instead. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Although I think merge / redirect are also possibilities. Has been tagged for over 11 years for wp:notability. There about three good sentences that could go into the Turck article. The rest is self-description marketing type stuff. I could handle it if pinged. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to E. T. Mensah. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yebuah Mensah[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:NMUSICIAN. None of the sources address the subject directly and in depth. The article itself is mainly about an interview where the subject is a genre of music, not the subject of the article. WP:BEFORE revealed no additional WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV, but BEFORE did reveal concerns about copyright. Copyvio details.   // Timothy :: talk  14:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  14:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  14:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (removing copyvio, obviously) to E. T. Mensah. E. T. was the major player here, Yebuah more of a footnote. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with E.T. Mensah per AleatoryPonderings. Yubuah fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Seems like he is only mentioned when quoted about the genre of music or Accra Rythmic Orchestra, started with his brother. Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (and redirect) with E.T. Mensah - I am inclined to simply deleting the article, but the previous voters came up with a good idea. Yebuah Mensah (this article) was an early player in the Ghana Highlife scene but all sources indicate that he was just one of many musicians in the scene. He made some news once by giving an interview about his brother, E.T. Mensah, who is definitely a notable musician. Anything said by Yebuah while taking about his brother's influence can be used as support over there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Welf Henry of Hanover[edit]

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

Genealogical entry; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. The topic fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG because there is no significant coverage in reliable sources other than genealogical publications. There are plenty of genealogy websites around; Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia. Surtsicna (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Christian Oscar of Hanover[edit]

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

Genealogical entry; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. There is no indication of notability as defined by WP:BASIC and WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not here to chronicle marital and reproductive exploits of obscure princelings. Surtsicna (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mostly routine genealogical information about someone born after the abolition of nobility in Germany. PatGallacher (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable member of a family deposed from power decades before his birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and the other comments above, non notable person.Smeat75 (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is nothing more than a genealogical record. The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that cover anything directly and indepth about this individual because they have done absolutely nothing notable. Being related to a public figure is not notable WP:INVALIDBIO WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY of non-notable members in royal families.   // Timothy :: talk  05:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Consorts_of_nobility. There's literally nothing he's done outside managing family funds, and some facts can;t be sourced. A redirect to his father's article would also be appropriate. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince George William of Hanover (born 1880)[edit]

Prince George William of Hanover (born 1880) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Genealogical entry; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. No indication of notability as defined by WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. The sources cited in the article are blogs and genealogy publications along with some routine coverage. None of that qualifies as "significant coverage in reliable sources", i.e. WP:SIGCOV. Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing truly of note about this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Nika2020 (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other comments above, non notable person.Smeat75 (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unless you can be notable for having ten names (Georg Wilhelm Christian Albert Edward Alexander Friedrich Waldemar Ernst Adolf, this is a name worthy of a Monty Python sketch), this is nothing more than a genealogical record. The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that cover anything directly and indepth about this individual because they have done absolutely nothing notable. Being related to a public figure is not notable WP:INVALIDBIO WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY of non-notable members in royal families.   // Timothy :: talk  05:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is outrrageous, and an attempt to write important aspects of the history of the Duchy of Brunswick and of the German Empire out of the history. He was the firstborn son of the last crownprince of Hannover, and thus Hereditary Prince of Hanover and Hereditary Prince for the Duchy of Brunswick. He died in a much talked about car-accident of it's time, wich is referenced in several books. Most important he was suggested as Duke of Brunswick in 1906, but this was turned down by the German Bundesrat on 28 February 1907. His death in 1912 had the unexpected consequence, that his only surviving brother Ernest Augustus was sent to Berlin to thank the Emperor for his condolence upon the death of George William. Ernest Augustus met the daughter of the Emperor, they fell in love, were married and he was eventually granted the Duchy of Brunswick. Since neither the the nominator Surtsicna nor any of the other four users (Johnpacklambert, Nika2020, Smeat75 & TimothyBlue) who have commented on the nomination so far have cared to comment or look into these aspects of the life and death of George William, Hereditary Prince of Hanover then their comments and arguments so far are erroneous and can not be given any truly weight in this nomination discussion. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- all User:Oleryhlolsson has done is repeat information in the article and then insult the other editors in this discussion. Of course I looked at the article before commenting. "They don't know what they are talking about so their views don't count" is a personal attack.Smeat75 (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So have you looked at the article again? Or are you merely interested in claiming that I should have written something that I haven't? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"all User:Oleryhlolsson has done is repeat information in the article" well yes - but first AFTER I had made research on the subject, found sourches, and made four updates to this article. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at it and I find the idea that someone can be notable for providing a matchmaking opportunity by dying to be, quite frankly, ridiculous. That the subject of this article was ever considered a potential duke of Brunswick is new to me; the German Wikipedia's articles about him and his father do not mention it and I cannot find it on Google Books. It is very well possible that there is a "significant coverage" of the subject somewhere but I struggle to find it; the sources you provided are mere death and marriage announcements; see WP:ROUTINE. Surtsicna (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This question had as far as I can tell substantial coverages in the medias of the time, besides it was mentioned occasionally or frequently in the years after that. So far the only newspapers I've consulted are the Danish ones but in the period September 1906 to March 1907 this question/matter was mentioned at least 30 times in Danish newspapers alone (and not all possible results are shown in the searches, so 30 is a minimum). I would expect some coverages in newspapers from other countries as well. Here is a list of Danish newspapers from this period, where I found this topic mentioned:
NATIONALTIDENDE (1876-1931), 14. september 1906
DAGENS NYHEDER (1868-1931), 14. september 1906
Kongelig allernaadigst privilegeret Horsens Avis eller Skanderborg Amtstidende (1842-1961), 14. september 1906
Den til Forsendelse med de Kongelige Brevposter privilegerede Berlingske Politiske og Avertissementstidende (1833-1935), 14. september 1906
Lolland-Falsters Stifts-Tidende (1835-1960), 14. september 1906
LEMVIG FOLKEBLAD (1874-2007), 16. september 1906
HOLSTEBRO DAGBLAD (1881-1983), 16. september 1906
MORSØ FOLKEBLAD (1877-), 17. september 1906
Næstved Tidende. Sydsjællands Folkeblad (1866-1918), 22. september 1906
SLAGELSE-POSTEN (1867-1916), 27. september 1906
SLAGELSE-POSTEN (1867-1916), 27. september 1906 (2nd edition)
NATIONALTIDENDE (1876-1931), 28. september 1906
Viborg Stifts Folkeblad (1877-), 28. september 1906
AALBORG AMTSTIDENDE (1889-1971), 29. september 1906
RANDERS DAGBLAD OG FOLKETIDENDE (1874-1970), 29. september 1906
FREDERIKSBORG AMTS AVIS (1874-), 30. september 1906
NÆSTVED TIDENDE. SYDSJÆLLANDS FOLKEBLAD (1866-1918), 6. oktober 1906
KONGELIG ALLERNAADIGST PRIVILEGERET HORSENS AVIS ELLER SKANDERBORG AMTSTIDENDE (1842-1961), 11. oktober 1906
Fredericia Dagblad (1890-), 11. oktober 1906
Kallundborg Avis (1857-1922), 11. oktober 1906
Jyllandsposten (1871-1937), 11. oktober 1906
Dagens Nyheder (1868-1931), 11. oktober 1906
Frederiksborg Amts Avis (1874-), 12. oktober 1906
NATIONALTIDENDE (1876-1931), 13. oktober 1906
KONGELIG ALLERNAADIGST PRIVILEGERET HORSENS AVIS ELLER SKANDERBORG AMTSTIDENDE (1842-1961), 13. november 1906
NATIONALTIDENDE (1876-1931), 18. december 1906
KØBENHAVN (1889-1928), 13. januar 1907
DAGENS NYHEDER (1868-1931), 11. marts 1907
LOLLAND-FALSTERS STIFTS-TIDENDE (1835-1960), 16. marts 1907
I also found stories about his pour health, and that he, very briefly, in late 1906 was offered the crown of Serbia. I've added something about this as well to the article.
Whether we choose to call his brothers way to the heart of his wife and the throne of Brunswick for ridiculous, funny, interesting, curious or something else that's one point, but the line of events was never the less as described. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Oleryhlolsson: that's a zillion; can you choose WP:THREE that make the best case for notability? --JBL (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Oleryhlolsson as I feel like that would make someone pretty noteable. Piratesswoop (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The sources listed above are all about the death of Prince Albert of Prussia and Duke John Albert of Mecklenburg becoming Duke of Brunswick, they do not address Prince George William directly or in-depth and contain no details about his life, just brief mentions of his name. If anyone can point me to RS that do address the subject directly and in-depth about something he is notable for, please let me know. I will add them to the article and request this nomination be withdrawn.   // Timothy :: talk  22:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formalia This article was selected for deletion, as creator West Virginian of the article have you any comments in that respect? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • West Virginian says he is fine with the deletions and asks not to be involved. Surtsicna (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine but it wasn't visible to my eyes, that he had been notified, therefore this formalia. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oleryhlolsson. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Timothy's statement that the sources provided by Oleryhlolsson don't even cover the subject with more than passing mentions. The anecdote about his death being a royal matchmaker is found (unsourced) in the articles of Ernest Augustus and Victoria Louise, so it's not like this page is the only location of this information. JoelleJay (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the comment above. Smeat75 (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV - strange to our ears, he was a leading dynastic and perennial candidate for several "jobs" as head of state of several countries. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearian: could you indicate WP:THREE sources that show significant coverage? --JBL (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Brunswick succession story is one of the most important claims in the article (for the "matchmaking", we don't need a standalone biography). Interestingly, the German Wikipedia claims that it was the youngest brother who was suggested as successor, not the subject here. The Danish sources given in the article don't really convince me otherwise. Weak delete unless this can be cleared up. —Kusma (t·c) 09:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. I agree that the sourcing is one-sided and poor. I did look for sources online, and they are either blogs and/or alternate history novels; the pretense is that if he'd lived and Hitler had been deposed, he'd been Emperor of Germany, and one bizarre book that claims he was Jewish. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Elisabeth von Schaper[edit]

Karin Elisabeth von Schaper (edit | 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 might be the most obvious genealogical entry I have encountered. Half the article is about descent from early modern and medieval families. There is no indication of significant coverage outside genealogy publications; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. The topic evidently fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Surtsicna (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Barbara of Prussia[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability as whatsoever; the topic evidently fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The subject was an obscure private individual who married and had children. Wikipedia is not here to serve as a genealogy database; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG we have let this grow too large with articles on people who never even had titles let alone power connected with those titles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other comment above, the state of Prussia was abolished and Princesses of that state did not exist before this person was born.WP:NOTGENEALOGYSmeat75 (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is nothing more than a genealogical record. The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that cover anything directly and indepth about this individual because they have done absolutely nothing notable. Being related to a public figure is not notable WP:INVALIDBIO WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY of non-notable members in royal families.   // Timothy :: talk  05:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV - her wedding was covered, she was born a princess, adopted by another, and she married well. I'm surprised this article hasn't been "adopted" like she was. Bearian (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I don't believe there are sources that address the subject directly and indepth. WP:ROUTINE coverage of normal life events such as birth, adoption, marriage does not provide evidence of notability. But if you could list the sources that address the subject (the person) directly and indepth (per WP:SIGCOV), such as what they have done or what they have participated in, which are not just mentions of the person because of their relation to another person (WP:NOTINHERITED), I will look and if they address the subject directly and indepth I will add the sources and information to the article and change my vote.   // Timothy :: talk  02:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iļja Ščaņicins[edit]

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

Never played professional football, seeing as the Finnish league was not professional in 2004. Geschichte (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete does not meet our already too broad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Finish league was professional in 2004. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as far as I can see on WP:FPL, the Veikkausliiga has no date limits on its professional status, and the first reference there suggests that it turned pro sometime in the 1990s...assuming this, he would meet NFOOTY. Not sure where the nom's rationale is coming from. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for meeting NFOOTBALL, unless nominator can provide a source supporting their assertion that it wasn't in 2004. GiantSnowman 15:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep played for FC Hämeenlinna in Finnish Veikkausliiga which is in fully pro leagues list. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio 14:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg[edit]

Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no indication of significant coverage as required by WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. The subject had a military career, not that you would know from this heavily genealogy-oriented article, but that appears not to make him any less obscure. Wikipedia is not here to chronicle the marital and reproductive exploits of undistinguished princelings. Surtsicna (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Friedrich Ferdinand of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg[edit]

Prince Friedrich Ferdinand of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (edit | 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 yet another genealogical entry. The subject appears to have attracted no significant coverage other than in genealogical publications. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, however, not a dumping ground for genealogy of obscure make-believe princes. See WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. The subject's military career is similarly obscure; the focus is obviously on his descendants, low-profile, private individuals. I see no indication that the topic might pass WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Cancelled and withdrawn (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Bishnoi[edit]

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

Very badly created article that would need a fundamental rewrite to be coherent. Copy and paste move from Draft:Pooja Bishnoi 1 minute after i draftified   Kadzi   (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess Anastasia of Mecklenburg-Schwerin[edit]

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

Here we have yet another genealogical entry. I see no indication of significant coverage either in the article or elsewhere on the Internet, and I can say with certainty that WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are not met. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random genealogy; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. It is also not the place to attribute lofty and abolished titles to obscure, private, living individuals with no indication that they ever went by such titles, nor is it the place to expose personal information (names and dates of birth) of the underage children of obscure individuals. This sort of articles is always a WP:OR mess. Surtsicna (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Olga of Hanover[edit]

Princess Olga of Hanover (edit | 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 evidently fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. There is absolutely nothing noteworthy to say about the subject. Googling her is futile because she is just so obscure. The only coverage is in genealogical publications but Wikipedia is not a genealogy database; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Christian of Hanover (born 1885)[edit]

Prince Christian of Hanover (born 1885) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no indication of notability as defined by WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The subject has received coverage only in genealogy publications but Wikipedia is not a genealogy database; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia was not meant to be a biographical disctionary of members of royal families.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom adn the other comment above, non notable person.Smeat75 (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is nothing more than a genealogical record. The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that cover anything directly and indepth about this individual because they have done absolutely nothing notable. Being related to a public figure is not notable WP:INVALIDBIO WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY of non-notable members in royal families.   // Timothy :: talk  05:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Prince Ernest Augustus, 3rd Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, per my comments Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Olga of Hanover, for similar reasons. Reasons: User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Consorts_of_nobility, WP:GNG, and WP:CHEAP; his father was a member of the British House of Lords and minor royalty himself. I note he was unmarried, and avoided publicity either by way of scandal or charitable work, dying as a teenager of appendicitis, which was until c. 1902 almost always a deadly disease. Once again, tagging West Virginian for an opinion. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Bearian and the many other applicable contributors, while I appreciate the intent behind the numerous alerts and notifications requesting my participation in these deletion requests for royal biography articles, I would respectfully like to decline involvement in these discussions. In the case of this article and others like it, I created or expanded them primarily between 2005 and 2009—well over ten years ago. I’ve now been a contributor to Wikipedia for over 15 years, and I have learned and grown a lot as a writer and editor during this time, especially in my compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines and standards. In my opinion, it is clear that this article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, and I would not have published it today. With all that said, the continued alerts and notifications to these deletion discussions are like endless intercom announcements requesting my presence in the office of the principal or headmaster for an unnecessary reprimand. There is clearly consensus here, and in the other discussions, to delete or redirect the articles, so my participation is not helpful or useful. I would like to extend a thank you to Surtsicna for not involving me in these discussions. I thank you all for taking the time to assess these articles for their notability, and for taking action to delete or redirect them as consensus warrants. Moving forward, I ask that you continue to assess the notability of each of these articles and their compliance with Wikipedia guidelines as they currently exist. — West Virginian (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Bearian (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Liddell-Grainger[edit]

Anne Liddell-Grainger (edit | 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 looks like a mere genealogical entry, being mostly about to whom she is related (see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy). There is talk of a missionary and charity work but it is sourced to a single article that was apparently published by The Daily Mirror, therefore being tabloid journalism. Looking it up further online has not produced any noteworthy results, so I doubt there is significant coverage to establish notability per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Surtsicna (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Liddell-Grainger's are British aristocrats however there is nothing else to suggest notability, fails WP:GNG --Devokewater@ 14:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other comment above.Smeat75 (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is nothing more than a genealogical record. The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that cover anything directly and indepth about this individual because they have done absolutely nothing notable. Being related to a public figure is not notable WP:INVALIDBIO WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY of non-notable members in royal families.   // Timothy :: talk  05:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swetabh Gangwar[edit]

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

In my opinion, this article should be considered via the WP:AFD process instead of outright WP:G11 deletion.

  • this article in India Today an assertion is made that he has "3 lakh views on his YouTube channel, and over 80 lakh views Facebook"
  • "The Rudest Book Ever" has an ISBN-13 - ISBN 978-9388754439

Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mentioned India Today reference is a PR work. Messiah of logic, like seriously? Looks obvious spam to me. Just having an ISBN number doesn't make a book or its author notable. No significant coverages or important work to satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. - The9Man (Talk) 08:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 21:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certified for Microsoft Dynamics[edit]

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

(Previously prodded and de-prodded) This was Microsoft's former method of certification of add-ins for Microsoft Dynamics. The two links provided are now dead. The article itself is little more than a press release of what CFMD entailed. There are no external reliable sources of information about it. I looked on PartnerSource and basically everything that was once there about CFMD is gone now. So there's no hope of improving this article or even providing verification for the things in it. B (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. B (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. B (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article reads like a technical manual, however having wikipages about Microsoft certifications is useful. --Devokewater@ 14:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Devokewater: Having an article about certifications is useful, I agree. However, this certification no longer exists. All information about it has been scrubbed from Microsoft websites and there was never any third party information about it to begin with. So it would be patently impossible to write an article about it that meets our verifiability and reliable sources rules. And whereas certifications like Microsoft Certified Professional are a meaningful topic to discuss independent of any particular product, CFMD is really just a certification program for one product and there is really nothing encyclopedic to say about it other than maybe a one-liner in the article about that product. --B (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 18:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 11:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Mukoro Idisi[edit]

Helen Mukoro Idisi (edit | 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 generally fails to meet WP:GNG as WP:BASIC, failing to receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In particular:

  • (1) The article currently shows her as "presidential candidate" in the 2016 and 2019 Spanish general elections (note that such figure of "presidential candidate" does not currently exist in Spain in the English-meaning of the term, since the country is a monarchy). While in those elections she ran as her party's candidate for national deputy, she failed to get elected (securing about 20-40 votes out of an electorate of over 100,000 in the constituency for which she sought election, or about 0.05% of the votes that were validly cast, a result that is not even close to be relevant or notable), thus failing to pass notability for this condition alone as per WP:POLOUTCOMES: Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls.
  • (2) The other event for which she is listed as notable is one in January 2020 where she was "arrested and accused of fraud and impersonation of a public official". Factually, a search of her name in Google mostly gives results for this specific, single event. As per WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E, We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: 1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. [...] 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented [...]. The event itself she is credited for is not even close to be significant enough to merit a stand-alone article, let alone justify an article for her.

It should also be noted that the article was created in September 2016 (this is, almost 4 years before the single event she is mostly referred to in current sources) in what seemed a work of promotion or even self-promotion of this individual (considering that the original author is a SPA whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been to this article and the one of her party). Most of the sources added at first were gradually removed throughout the years either as primary or not significant ones, while the original content was deleted for the most part due to it being irrelevant and poorly referenced, leaving the article in its current state. Impru20talk 10:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is mainly inaccuate and makes claims that are just plain false, thus it is somewhere between a hoax and an article written by someone who did not at all understand the source material they were using. Either way nothing about her arrest adds up to actual notability nor do any other sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails BLP1E and WP:POLITICIAN. The nom's extensive analysis is entirely persuasive. Ravenswing 10:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Despite the nominator's fairly extensive reasoning, there has not been a single other !vote to delete, and closing as such would be a textbook supervote. The argument that we have many articles on state awards with official sourcing does hold water, yet we are currently in a gray area notability wise. There is no SNG directly relating to awards (though there should be-- even the failed SNG only discusses it in the context of somebody winning it). It's not the place of an AFD closer to imagine a future SNG, and there does not seem to be a clear consensus regarding state awards (see here where many !voters suggested awards must meet GNG and here where many said the opposite). WIth no consensus to keep and keep !votes based on a presumption of notability that isn't necessarily agreed upon, we end up at no consensus. It's past time for an RFC on the topic. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medal "For services in the field of military cooperation"[edit]

Medal "For services in the field of military cooperation" (edit | 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: Article does not meet WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE did not reveal WP:RS independent of the subject that addressed the topic directly and in detail beyond WP:ROUTINE mentions. WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." Another option would be to create an article Military Awards of the Republic of Azerbaijan and merge all of the Azerbaijani award articles which do not meet criteria for their own individual article, into one article that could (probably) meet WP:GNG.   // Timothy :: talk  04:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: State award of the Republic of Azerbaijan. It was approved by Law of Azerbaijan Republic No 328-IIQ dated May 17, 2002. Medal “For services in military cooperation”, state awards like this are clearly notable. Sources clearly prove its existence!--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Elshad Iman (Elşad İman), your opinion is that they are notable. Your opinion is not backed up by any independent sources that establish notability as required by Wikipedia guidelines. You must provide multiple WP:RS secondary sources that are independent of the subject (not a source associated with the government, military or their affiliates) that address the subject directly and in detail to establish notablity per WP:GNG. Just because it exists does not make it notable WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It does not appear you understand the notability guidelines. If I can help by answering any questions, please let me know.   // Timothy :: talk  05:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article about the medal is available in Azerbaijani and Russian languages. is available in other languages ​​as it is an important award.This article is part of the WikiProjects military history project. --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. State awards like this are clearly notable and have been held to be notable at AfD in the past. Sources clearly prove its existence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The keep !votes are entirely based on feeling and opinion and have failed to support the keep !votes with any policies or guidelines, or reliable, independent secondary sources. The arguments that "It was approved by Law...", that it is available on other wikis, and other stuff exists are not valid reasons that demonstrate notability. Subjects are notable because they have significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources that addresses the topic directly and in detail WP:SIGCOV. The sources provided are not secondary sources independent of the subject. None of the keep !votes has provided (or even attempted to provide) sources that meet WP:RS criteria for notability. Its existence is not enough to prove WP:N, and it is not enough to merit inclusion. "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful" WP:WWIN.   // Timothy :: talk  11:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they're based on previous AfDs, consensus and, dare I say it, common sense that state awards should be seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Necrothesp when you say "they're based on previous AfDs" thats WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. When you say "common sense that..." thats an opinion based on WP:ILIKEIT. The best advice I can offer is please take some time to read WP:N, WP:WWIN, and WP:RS, Wikipedia works based on policies, guidelines, and sources not on personal opinions. I offer this suggestion with only goodwill, it will help you be a more productive member of the community and will make your time here more enjoyable. Also many experienced editors offer to mentor individuals, you might post something at the WP:TEAHOUSE about getting a mentor to help you with notability and reliable sources; I have several I go to with questions, so I know it helps from personal experience, I'm not suggesting anything I don't already do. Another idea is thinking about getting into Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School (this isn't new page patrol, but the principles cross over). If you can backup your positions with policies, guidelines and sources, you'll be much more effective here and it will help build a consensus instead of everyone just going back and forth. Best wishes and again I offer the suggestions in goodwill.   // Timothy :: talk  19:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than rise to being patronised, I will choose to WP:AGF and assume that you actually haven't bothered to read my userpage, that you don't actually know that I've been a "productive" editor here for more than sixteen years (whereas it looks like you've been here for less than a year), have written hundreds of articles and contributed to many thousands more, and also contributed to thousands of AfD and other discussions, many of which have set consensus on notability. I therefore really do know how Wikipedia works very well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No I hadn't looked, and well all I can say is wow I'm shocked. It would have never occurred to me you were an admin. From your contributions, I honestly assumed you were completely inexperienced, which should cause you to reflect. My advice is still completely valid. I think you should seriously review the guidelines and policies and consider a mentor. Otherwise, maybe a tban should be considered by the community. What area do you contribute in as an admin?   // Timothy :: talk  22:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after a WP:BADNAC per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 13.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep State award. Sources proves it. Believe this to be within WP:GNG. As per Necrothesp and Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) Cheers. --Erokhin (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Necrothesp and Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) Cheers. Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Based on the above overturn of the close, I strongly urge everyone to support their comments with policies, guidelines and sources, not invalid personal opinions and feelings. Since this close has been overturned and relisted, the eventual close will without doubt be evaluated based on !votes which are supported by policies and guidelines per WP:CLOSEAFD ("Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments."), not WP:ILIKEIT opinion votes without support from policies and guidelines.   // Timothy :: talk  13:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added new sources to the article.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • TimothyBlue (and others) WP:OSE says ...countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged. ... While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. ... In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia. I think this is a case where an OSE argument is in fact a valid argumetn agaisnt deletion. DES (talk)

DESiegel Contribs 19:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: Hi DESiegel, I read what you wrote and genuinely appreciate your attempt to mediate this dispute. I have a four honest questions.
  1. "by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged" Do you believe I have referred them to WP:OSE and nothing else? I've mentioned OSE in one response and I also mentioned WP:N, WP:WWIN, and WP:RS with it. The rest of my comments I believe I have gone into detail about the policies and guidelines related to notability.
  2. "they may form part of a cogent argument"' If it may form part of a cogent argument, what is the rest of the argument? I can't identify anything other than, it exists and it's an award from the government, so it must be notable which is refuted by WP:WWIN "information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful."
  3. Do you believe the above essay is sufficient reason to set aside the notability guidelines cited and ignore the lack of independent, secondary sources that address the topic directly and in-depth? (I strongly suspect you don't believe this).
  4. If OSE is a valid argument, how should it be weighed against arguments based on WP:N?
I understand your point about OSE being taken into account, I can see it in cases where the subject is borderline notable, but not in cases where there are no independent, secondary sources that address the topic directly and in-depth to establish notability. Forgive my firmness on this, I'm honestly not being stubborn just to be difficult. I see AdDs being decided based on votes, feelings and opinions and not based on !votes and reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. I strongly believe this needs to change. If people feel that there should be an SNG guideline for evaluating award notability, they should propose such a guideline; its easy to do and the community can evaluate the issue. If this passes as Keep, I may propose such a guideline based on the reasoning here as a basis to support or reevaluate these articles. Until then we need to discuss based on existing guidelines and policies.   // Timothy :: talk  20:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are five points under WP:GNG
  • Point 1: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail"
  • Point 3: ""Sources"should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability"
  • Point 4: ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it"
Under WP:PRIMARYCARE it states "Secondary sources are needed to establish notability for the purposes of deciding which articles to keep." and under WP:PSTS it states "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability".
Six References:
  1. This is material copied from a government websites by a government contractor. It is not independent of the subject. It is not a secondary source; it is a copy from primary source.
  2. "Collection of Legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan" - This is a government publication. It is not a secondary source; It is a primary source. It is not independent of the subject.
  3. From the "Ministry Of Defense Of Azerbaijan" It is not a secondary source; it is a primary source. It is not independent of the subject.
  4. This is two sentences long. It states a few basic facts from the law. It does not discuss the subject indepth.
  5. As the heading declares, this is a copy of an Official Document from the government. It is not a secondary source and it is not independent of the subject.
  6. This is a government document. It is not a secondary source and it is not independent of the subject.
  // Timothy :: talk  19:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the GNG is a guideline (not a policy). At the head of the page, as for pretty much every guideline page, it says ... is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. TimothyBlue's comments above seem to treat the GNG as absolute and unchallangable. There are a number of categories of articles where secondary sources are not required to support an article. An article about a legally recognized popular place, as per WP:GEOLAND may be acepted base purely oin primary sources that show its existence. An article about a member of a national legislature is acceptable even if we have no more than primary official sources that establish that the person existed and was a member, as is the case for many historical legislators, particularly those prior to 1900. Such articles are accepted merely on official records of membership in a legislature, and perhaps official records of speeches made or votes cast. Articles about radio stations are accepted based purely on primary sources showing that they have been licensed and operated. Articles about secondary and tertiary schools are often accepted based just on primary sources showing that they existed, and perhaps were official government schools. In short, not all categories of articles require independent secondary sources. I am suggesting that medals and awards officially presented by a nation should be a similar category, that primary sources showing offici8al authorization of such awards and showing that they have, in fact, been presented, should be sufficient. I am arguing that a wide group of Wikipedia articles have been created and remained in existence on that basis, and that few of these have been challenged, and that in at least one case linked earlier in this discussion, such a challenge was made and rejected. There have, if I am not mistaken, been recent discussions at DRV suggesting that an AfD discussion may in good faith make a reasoned exception to the GNG, and that such local consensus will not be overturned by DRV. I am suggesting that a new SNG should be created to cover this case. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, we should treat officially established awards and medals given out by a nation as being notable if reliable sources, including official sources, prove that they exist and are indeed official national awards. As per DESiegel Cheers.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for closer: Since there has been some discussion from both sides of this debate (from this and other recent AfDs) about needing an SNG guideline specifically for Awards, I believe both sides would be very interested in how you evaluated the arguments and made the close decision, so it can help shape and inform any new SNG proposal. Thanks for your help.   // Timothy :: talk  13:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The discussion cannot in any way be read as a consensus to delete the article. The reasoning is not necessarily the best – that is why I have gone to no consensus despite that a bare headcount would yield a keep – but the views are clear. AFD is not, however, the place to propose or create SNGs; that would be a matter for an appropriate part of WP:VP.

I do not express a view on renaming; that can be discussed on the article talk page.

As with all my deletion decisions, I consider them carefully before implementing them and do not change my decisions based on talk page requests. If you feel that the decision does not follow deletion policy, please proceed directly to Wikipedia:Deletion review; I waive all requirements to consult with me prior to doing so. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third degree medal of the Republic of Azerbaijan for "impeccable service in migration bodies"[edit]

Third degree medal of the Republic of Azerbaijan for "impeccable service in migration bodies" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  12:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article does not meet WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE did not reveal WP:RS independent of the subject that addressed the topic directly and in detail beyond WP:ROUTINE mentions. WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." Another option would be to create an article Military Awards of the Republic of Azerbaijan and merge all of the Azerbaijani award aritlces which do not meet criteria for their own individual article, into one article that could (probably) meet WP:GNG.  // Timothy :: talk  03:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: state award of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Established by law dated November 16, 2012. The medal is awarded to employees with a special rank of service in migration bodies of the Azerbaijan Republic who have completed 10, 15 and 20 calendar years, state awards like this are clearly notable. Sources clearly prove its existence!--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a more notable article --Devokewater @ 09:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. State awards like this are clearly notable and have been held to be notable at AfD in the past. Sources clearly prove its existence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: The keep !votes are entirely based on feeling and opinion and have failed to support the keep !votes with any policies or guidelines. Subjects are notable because they have significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources that addresses the topic directly and in detail WP:SIGCOV. The sources provided are not secondary sources independent of the subject. None of the keep votes has provided (or even attempted to provide) sources that meet WP:RS criteria. Its existence is not enough to prove WP:N, and it is not enough to merit inclusion. "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful" WP:WWIN.   // Timothy :: talk  10:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: 1) Do you have a guideline that says "precedent" is a reason to keep a non-notable article? 2) If this is "clearly notable" why have you not added any independent secondary sources that would support this?
The article you mentioned was improperly closed. It only had two votes that only stated opinions not sources and guidelines and it should have been relisted. You still have not cite any policys or guidelines for your !votes and has mentioned, you have not provided any independent secondary sources. The closer will disregard opinions and base the decision on sources and notability guidelines.   // Timothy :: talk  11:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the closer will do what they choose without any helpful instruction from you! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after a WP:BADNAC per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 13.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I completely support the idea of a proposed SNG to clarify this.   // Timothy :: talk  21:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, we should treat officially established awards and medals given out by a nation as being notable if reliable sources, including official sources, prove that they exist and are indeed official national awards. As per DESiegel Cheers.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for closer: Since there has been some discussion from both sides of this debate (from this and other recent AfDs) about needing an SNG guideline specifically for Awards, I believe both sides would be very interested in how you evaluated the arguments and made the close decision, so it can help shape and inform any new SNG proposal. Thanks for your help.   // Timothy :: talk  13:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply State awards like this are clearly notable and have been held to be notable at AfD in the past. Sources clearly prove its existence. which they all agreed. Article on state awards with official sourcing, it's past time for an RFC on the topic.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep state awards are notable based on past consensus. The article could use some reference format but it is a notable award. Wm335td (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If discussion is closed as keep, a rename is definitely in order. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 01:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Nazi Zombies[edit]

Operation Nazi Zombies (edit | 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: Article does not meet WP:GNG or the WP:NFO additional criteria at WP:NFILM for a stand-alone article. WP:BEFORE revealed only additional info from movie database and streaming sites and reviews that do not meet WP:NFO   // Timothy :: talk  22:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  22:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: HorrorNews.net is usually seen as a RS as far as horror movies go (it's not as strong as if it were Bloody Disgusting, but generally OK), but the other links go to blog type sites. That's pretty much the only source I'm seeing so far though. The closest I'm coming other than that so far is a listing here, but it's not in-depth enough to where I'd consider it anything but a trivial source. I'm leaning towards delete but I'll give it a little more searching before calling it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I honestly didn't expect to find any other sources that would be usable, but I found a review from AICN. I don't particularly like the site but as far as I know it's still seen as reliable. I also found a news article about the film screening. This would be an incredibly weak keep on my end but it's technically enough to pass NFILM at this point in time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has reliable sources reviews such as Horror News and Aint it Cool News, more would be helpful but just passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Hi ReaderofthePack and Atlantic306, thanks for the points you make. I'd ask you to consider this counter point. WP:GNG says ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article". WP:N says "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"". Is this movie genuinely worthy of notice? I think the actual reviews in the sites mentioned make it clear that this movie is not notable. Thanks for your input.   // Timothy :: talk  22:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a review is positive or negative has no bearing on notability. In fact bad reviews at least prove the independence of the sources, its the existence of the reviews in reliable sources that shows that the film has been worthy of notice, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As Atlantic306 says, the quality of the film is not relevant to its notability; bad films can be just as notable as good ones. A Wikipedia page is not an endorsement for the subject. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keepSeems to be an incredibly bad horror movie, made on a shoe string budget, but does have soem reviews, so it would seem to be a weak keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Telegram (software). Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Fortress LLC[edit]

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:ORG. A before search shows the organization has no notability as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. There seems to be notable persons involved in the organization so in the very least it could be redirected, although I suggest outright deletion.Celestina007 12:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 12:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 12:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 12:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 12:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 12:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 08:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Anniston, Alabama#The Civil Rights era. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anniston Hardware[edit]

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

Former(?) business in Alabama, known apparently only for one event (WP:1E), i.e., being bombed by racists in the 1960s. I tagged this for notability concerns in 2009, and it has not been improved since. The bombing episode is already adequately covered in Anniston, Alabama#The Civil Rights era, and there doesn't seem to be anything else to say about this business. In fact, all of the content is not about the business at all, but about the civil rights conflicts of the time. Sandstein 08:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 08:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 08:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten Rescue[edit]

Kitten Rescue (edit | 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. Normal Op (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom - no RS establishing this as notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not notable, inadequate sourcing.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found a several LA Times articles that talks about it relating to COVID-19; and people's magazine article about Colton Haynes adopting a cat from there, but those things are not really sufficient. Being in LA Times for LA related matters is quite a bit different from non-California matters being talked about in LA Times. Graywalls (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Scouts of America[edit]

Dog Scouts of America (edit | 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. Normal Op (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Sharma (businessman)[edit]

Rahul Sharma (businessman) (edit | 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, WP:BLPRS, WP:SIGCOV. Married to an actress WP:BIORELATED. Qualifies as WP:PROMO. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sapphires Model Management[edit]

Sapphires Model Management (edit | 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 company. Notability is not inherited from either its founder or its clients. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anjathe Sridhar[edit]

Anjathe Sridhar (edit | 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 for this actor. He is briefly mentioned in this review: https://cinema.vikatan.com/humoursatire/46032--2. He is not notable as a director because none of his films released. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 21:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addison (car)[edit]

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

The subject of this article doesn't seem notable. Since there is no sources about it in the article in the article and I was unable to find anything, let alone in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, by doing a WP:BEFORE. So, this fails WP:GNG and the more specific notability guidelines for products. Adamant1 (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 02:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 02:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is coverage in the early motoring press such as The Motor Car Journal; The Auto and Motor. And then there's more in later histories of motoring such as The British Motorcycle Directory and the Treasury of Foreign Cars, Old and New. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have links to the coverage or are you just speculating that it exists? Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. Of the thousands of books and magazines about automobiles out there, do you really think someone would pick these 5 as a guess? Also, no one has to provide links to coverage, they just need citations. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your worthless comment about me not assuming good faith isn't assuming good faith. There's a legitimate reason I asked. 100% someone would pick those specific magazines if they knew those car magazines were in print during the time this car was produced. Just naming a couple of magazines that might have mentioned the car without providing specifics doesn't prove anything about notability. Anymore then it would do the same things with any other subject. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Each AfD contains search links -- see above. The nominator is expected to conduct such searches but some people are better at it than others. All the sources I cited have something to say about the various models of Addison; that's why I listed them. Of course, as they were published over 100 years ago in the pre-Internet era, we don't have easy access. But we don't need all the details right now as, per WP:NOTCLEANUP, we're not here to work on the article. Our job is to assess the nomination and I find it wanting. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, really there's way to search for sources? Who would have thought and this whole time I assumed they just magically appeared out of thin air or something. You must have missed where I said did a before and nothing come up. Nothing usable for this car and the sources you say contain information about it comes up in the search links. Thanks for the useless education on how to use the internet though.
Anyway, the reason I asked is because you said "such as." Which doesn't sound like a 100% statement of the car being covered in those magazines to me. Maybe we don't technically need the details right now, but "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. If you just think magazines "such as" those covered the car in-depth "because car magazines", but don't specifically know that they did, then I would say that's not a rational policy based argument. Like WP:AFDFORMAT says "a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive." IMO asserting that something exists, but saying you don't need to provide the proof that it does because "pre-internet era brah" or whatever would qualify as "proof by assertion." Which isn't a good keep argument. Not to mention your telling me that I would have found the sources if I had of done a basic search for them, but then your saying they aren't easy to find because "pre-internet era." Which is completely nonsensical. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen worse nominations than this... I suspect part of the struggle people have had with seeing the Google Books sources is they "search the internet", especially using the link above, and don't take it further by searching "auto" rather than "car" or for the name of the company. I suspect that folks like me from the pre-internet era may think more widely in terms of concepts rather than search terms because we had to use a card catalog and indices to find the minimum number of sources for a paper on Shakespeare's clowns or endangered wildlife or we'd end up in summer school. But that's just my opinion. And it isn't a criticism. Maybe it's fodder for my first essay. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC) Additionally: I find it hilarious to think that someone with the ability search for the list of things that could cover the subject of this particular era and subject OR who had prior knowledge of the publications would throw them out as coverage without checking them. Not so hilarious that I've been accused of bad faith for calling out someone who suggests an editor who gives incomplete citations is being deceitful, but next time it'll be expected. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is not, the case that editors can just claim -- absent of actual proof -- that sources exist. They must actually produce them to meet WP:SIGCOV, and the burden of proof is on editors seeking to retain the article. For all we know, after all, those "sources" are mere advertisements and press releases, and I'd be more trusting if there weren't recent cases of chicanery from an editor very ready to claim that others don't follow WP:BEFORE. So before I changed my vote, I would want to see what precise reliable sources any keep proponent claimed provided the significant coverage to the subject the GNG requires, quoting publication dates and page numbers. (Just FYI, I am a cardholder at the municipal library with the largest collection in the Western Hemisphere, and am happy to verify any claimed evidence myself.)

    Otherwise, one can only conclude that they haven't actually looked at the sources they claim exist. Ravenswing 04:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename the page as The Addison Motor Company. Meets WP:GNG now; I'm not familiar with organizational guidelines, so I can't weigh in. Regarding the sources mentioned above (and some other sources too): They are in Google books; I'm almost done adding them (hint to searchers: If you want to find a car in the first decade of the 1900s, search for "auto" and "motor", not just car, and other words used in the article, like "tri-car" and "Liverpool"). DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Id be fine with a rename if the article is kept. That said, the three sources I checked that you added are essentially just extremely basic business/product listings. Adamant1 (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
False. No product listings or directory listings among them. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The coverage in The Autocar, The Commercial Motor and The British Motorcycle Directory look legitimate to me. I agree with the rename to The Addison Motor Company. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "The Addison Motor Company" - I found a reference to it here - seems to be a legit car manufacturer (of some historical note) and on that basis, worth keeping. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "The Addison Motor Company" - enough sources available to meet WP:COMPANY --John B123 (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sreenidhi FC[edit]

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

Not a professional club. Can be created next year if it plays in the I-League, a professional league per WP:FPL. Also fails notability as organisation. Drat8sub (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 05:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 05:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Per creator's arguments, it seems the article is WP:CRYSTALBALL & can be WP:NOTNEWS. Drat8sub (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the club became notable from yesterday after their i-league entry was announced by aiff. it will be in sports news from now on it's already in goal.com, sportstar the hindu etc.) and multiple events like player scouting, team building etc. will also be there. WP:FPL is for football player articles. Otherwise there are many football club articles not playing in WP:FPL. ❯❯❯   S A H A 05:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First read carefully, FPL mentioned for showing there are only two pro leagues in India, and the club does not play in any."It will be in sports news from now on" is called Crystalball and simply wikipedia is NOTNEWS. "Notable from yesterday after their i-league entry", again WP:NOTNP and entry is from 2021-22 not now. There is no independent source describing the club, nowhere near to notability, a single story of future entry in I-league does not make notable. The Notability Criteria are very clear and bright, Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. It can be created next year after getting entry or sigcov. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. in FPL, its mentioned "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game"
  2. many clubs have articles, but still not in FLP
  3. no where its said, this article will be used as a newspaper. all clubs have their notable events, dates mentioned. how is this WP:NOTNEWS?
  4. not WP:Crystal since media have already written regarding the club. [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. ❯❯❯   S A H A 07:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you failed to undersrand why FLP have been mentioned, clearly to show the club is not playing in any professional league in India and an amateur club formed recently expected hardly to have a notability. "media have already written regarding the club", show citations of major footballing websites and newspapers describing the club, independent of "the incidental" one line news of getting entry in I-League which is a copy paste of AIFF press release (this is not notability). If non pro club exists please be sure they have notability and sigcov. Drat8sub (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
dont know, how these exist... AU Rajasthan FC, Garhwal F.C., ARA F.C.. all these are based on a single event only... ❯❯❯   S A H A 10:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is exactly what WP:OTHER is and you just did that, should not have done here. The guideline is crystal clear. Drat8sub (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    that's what I want to know/clarify. if this exist, why not this? policies are the same for every article. ❯❯❯   S A H A 10:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no crystal ballery here as the club has been confirmed as playing in a national league this coming season Spiderone 09:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Club is not playing in the coming season i.e, 2020-21 but it will be playing in 2021-22, one and half year from now. Creating articles on future event will be Crystalball and also can't be created just for a news per NOTNEWS. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the nomination is fundamentally flawed, as it talks about WP:FPL (fully-professional leagues) - which has nothing to do with whether articles exist for football clubs. The majority of articles in Wikipedia for football clubs are for teams that aren't in fully professional leagues - FPL exists to judge players, not teams. Normally articles are created when new teams are announced as joining a FPL league - as invariably there is significant coverage meeting GNG. Nothing unusual here, and we again see such GNG coverage. Nfitz (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per arguments above, CTYSTALBALL does not apply. GiantSnowman 15:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Dyckman[edit]

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

Not notable. --Michael WhiteT·C 06:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes had an important role at Fort Orange ( Later Albany, New York) and was instrumental in maintaining 'law and order' for the Fort and the surrounding area. I think there is enough references to those matters to warrant the keeping of this short biography.

Stwainer (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, with a caveat. Per:
    • Merwick, Donna (1999). Death of a notary : conquest and change in colonial New York. Cornell University Press. chapter 4; 218ff. ISBN 0801487889. (deepest coverage)
    • Reynolds, Cuyler (1906). Albany chronicles, a history of the city arranged chronologically. J. B. Lyon. p. 89, 96. (two paragraphs)
    • Cabot, John Stevens (1898). Peter Stuyvesant. Dodd, Mead. p. 144. (quasi-trivial, but establishes his historical role in the Peter Stuyvesant administration)
Official of the Dutch West India Company who took on a number of bureaucratic roles in Fort Orange. Apparently a nasty guy: "a man little liked, pettish, surly and malignant", who was later removed from his position due to "insanity"! (That's in Reynolds at 49). One caveat: I turned up at least two Johannes Dyckmans in my search, one of whom was a military officer. If any of these sources are about the other Dyckman (or Dyckmann), obviously my arguments have less weight. But I'm fairly confident that they're all about the grouchy administrator. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first source contains a number of references, but none are more than a few sentences long, and they are all in passing. It would be hard to call it significant coverage under WP:GNG.--Michael WhiteT·C 19:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin "slow jammin" james[edit]

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

Fails notability, does not meet any criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Lack of reliable independent sources. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable radio DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I had proposed this for deletion prior. He has been around for a while but he is still a non-notable DJ. I would support a redirect to whichever station he is currently at (his current job is not evident from reading the article) ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He doesn't seem to be at any station right now, just a website and app. Raymie (t • c) 05:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The SWORD Project. Tone 09:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

STEP Bible[edit]

STEP Bible (edit | 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 flagged as needing better refs since Jan 2014. Can't find any significant coverage to indicate notability. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article is being updated now (though admittedly, this should have been done much sooner). Notability is difficult to establish by reviews, but here are some:
  1. "review". Theological Librarianship, Vol.11 (April 2018). Retrieved 2020-08-09.
  2. "review". The Gospel Coalition. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
  3. "review". BiblicalStudies.org.uk. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
  4. "review". Institute for Religious Research. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
  5. "review". Disciples Today. Retrieved 2020-08-09.

STEPBible is recommended or required by a wide variety of Bible colleges, including:

  1. Tyndale University, Canada (not related to Tyndale House, Cambridge)
  2. Wheaton college, Chicago
  3. St. Mary's Seminary & University, Baltimore
  4. Pusey House, Oxford
  5. St Peter's College, Sheffield

This is a significant open-source project with an active team on Github and a growing data repository that is used by other projects. Front ends are available for Download on Mac OS, Windows & Linux, Download on iOS (Beta), Download on Android (Beta), Chrome book and server access at www.STEPBible.org.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The firm is WP:LISTED and fulfills WP:NCORP with adequate WP:RS (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 21:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EClerx[edit]

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

May be it's a listed company but it fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The article is too short and has no credible third-party citations or any significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found in the case studies in books [27] [28] and this article [29] There are also lots of scholarly articles analysing the company [30] [31] [32]. These links provide significant coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH and fulfil notability requirements at WP:CORP. Z1720 (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After ten days have passed since scope_creep's comment without agreement or disagreement, I can't close this any other way. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tkinzy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tkinzy (edit | 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:MUSICBIO. No coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR scope_creepTalk 13:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — My rationale from the previous AFD is pretty much still valid. Celestina007 13:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think the sources in the article when combined are strong enough to pass WP:BASIC.   // Timothy :: talk  02:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How can he pass WP:BASIC when all the sources are from one effectively one paper. He is not a global star, nor even a regional musician. The referenced YouTube video has 2,762 views, confirming the fact, that he hasn't got a global presence. Not even a regional presence. He has no presence on Soundcloud (2 people are following him from 6 years ago for that hit), Amazon Music, Spotify, Apple Music, nor Napster are all empty of fans. There is no presence on Social media. He is a 1-hit wonder is his local country, 6 six years ago, and never made it beyond that. Per consensus, that is insufficient to establish notabilty on Wikipedia. He fails WP:MUSICBIO by a long way. scope_creepTalk 10:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the subjects Youtube Page: [33]. Not notable. scope_creepTalk 10:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio 14:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AD Boyz[edit]

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

The article is nothing else than a piece of promotion failing GNG Dtt1Talk 02:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dtt1Talk 02:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 05:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 11:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Jain[edit]

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

Although she seems to be having some songs on her name but she fails WP:SIGCOV Dtt1Talk 02:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dtt1Talk 02:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of any notability Spiderone 10:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Bridgeport Purple Knights. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Knights Field (Bridgeport, CT)[edit]

Knights Field (Bridgeport, CT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  22:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  22:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bridgeport Purple Knights. No evidence of notability independent of the parent article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hargreaves (footballer)[edit]

Henry Hargreaves (footballer) (edit | 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:NFOOTBALL, as he did not compete in a match between two fully professional clubs. Lettlerhello 01:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 01:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 01:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 01:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 01:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Holmes[edit]

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

I think this article fails WP:NACTOR. Sourced only to interviews in niche websites. The best I could find for coverage was this, which doesn't look like an RS; this is another interview; as is this. She competed on a season of Scream Queens and did not win. Notability tagged since 2012. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burnet Maybank III[edit]

Burnet Maybank III (edit | 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 based upon unsourced clams and promotional sources. Best Lawyers in America is not a reliable source for notability. Relative minor public positions, relatively minor community activities and awards/ (I tried to fix the promotionalism , but found there was almost nothing left.) DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I originally proposed this one for deletion. I think it's clear he doesn't meet notability requirements. Muttnick (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Does a state commissioner of revenue pass WP:NPOL as someone who has held state/province–wide office? My gut says no; my penchant for nitpicking says yes. But even if he does technically pass NPOL, I'm not seeing sufficient sustained coverage of his only claim to notability. There's this (paywalled), for instance, and an article called "Small team to shape Sanford administration" in The Post and Courier (a couple sentences about him) but not a whole lot else. In most respects your standard tax lawyer. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. I don't think WP:NPOL is intended to cover every head of every state agency. The state of South Carolina has hundreds of executive branch agencies, and while the Department of Revenue is undoubtedly an important one, there is also a Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, a Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, a Department of Archives and History, a Department of Juvenile Justice, a Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, and so on, each having a department head on the same level in the state structure as the person atop the Department of Revenue. I am only leaning delete because this subject has apparently written a fair number of articles and some books (one error in the article, though, is that it lists a book titled The Law of Automobile Insurance, when the actual book is The Law of Automobile Insurance in South Carolina, a much narrower topic). If his writing garnered reviews or commentary, I think that would put him over the line, but his government office does not. BD2412 T 03:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_August_13&oldid=976122891"