Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 21 August 23 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parks Canada Players[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. I could not find significant coverage in a WP:BEFORE search Z1720 (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 00:15, 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. This is a keep and a possible merge can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 07:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Blunt, No. 11[edit]

George W. Blunt, No. 11 (edit | 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 was originally nominated for deletion for copyvio. The article creator whose also the copyright holder of the source did an OTRS release but Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing self-published contents. WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NTEMP. There doesn't appear to be anytime in the modern times that even reference this. https://issuu.com/greghenderson/docs/hendersonfamilytree_v9c_greg_review - p 28-29. Graywalls (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My apologies but I don't understand the argument about "self-published contents." Every article on Wikipedia is self-published in the sense that it was written by the contributors. The fact that in this case the content was first published elsewhere seems irrelevant if there is proper attribution and the copyright has been released. A better argument for deletion would be notability, but I think the sources bring the article over the line. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually two reasons. Wikipedia isn't a repository for webmasters to mirror contents from their own CC-SA-BY released websites. It's a COI when the person creating the website is also the one putting substantial copies from it here. The second reason is the sourcing cited, or what I can locate suggests there's no lasting notability. You voted to keep. Do you believe this sail boat/yacht has lasting notability past the early 20th century? There was some coverage in the 1800s, but otherwise it seems like it's not a WP:SUSTAINED notability. I'm not unable to see anything modern referencing to it as something of significance. Being in paper about wreckage during the era when this boat was still relevant doesn't seem to be of importance in notability. Graywalls (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see the COI issue. If the content belongs on Wikipedia, then it belongs on Wikipedia whether or not it's also published elsewhere. Put differently, there would be no problem if the editor had written the article on Wikipedia and then copied it, with attribution, to his or her own website, so I don't see why it makes a big difference that this time it was done in the other order.
As I acknowledged, the notability is a more serious concern. You are obviously right that if we made a list of the most important vessels of the nineteenth century, this boat would not be on it. Put differently, we wouldn't aspire to someday have an article on every nineteenth-century vessel with the same level of importance. Nonetheless, I think there are times when it's helpful to have an article on an typical example of a type of object or a phenomenon, where the information needed to create an article happens to survive. Although this keep rationale is not well-captured in the guidelines, it has come up before and at times has been accepted. The bottom line is that the letter of the rule-book aside, I think our encyclopedia is better for containing this article than it would be without it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The deletion rationale is very muddled. That the material was first published elsewhere is not a concern (as long as copyright is clear), and NTEMP is usually a "keep" argument. If the boat was notable in the 1800s then it's still notable today. pburka (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Reliable sources, including the New York Daily Times and several published books. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment perhaps redirect to USS_G._W._Blunt_(1861) which predates this page and the page says this boat became the USS GW Blunt. An essentially identical article. Graywalls (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Secondary source from Charles Edward Russell's book, From Sandy Hook to 62 talks about the boat as one of only twenty-one New York pilot boats in 1860; the boat was built by the prominent Westervelt & Co. shipyard; and primary sources include lots of historical newspaper reports of how this pilot-boat in particular, was responsible for helping to rescue and save the lives of men that met with disasters at sea.--Greg Henderson (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This AfD raises some interesting meta-issues, which I have discussed in an essay, here. I would welcome any comments on its talkpage. My thanks to everyone here for a thought-provoking discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious merge to the later name USS_G._W._Blunt_(1861) - one boat, two articles? No. I actually agree with Nyb's "typical" rationale, and have used it at Afd (mostly for museum ceramics etc), but it isn't exactly policy. Nor is this the example to make a stand on. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an updated !vote, I agree that "merge" is now the right outcome here, although I have no preference on which of the two titles should be the main article and which the redirect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we should do as we do with people and choose the final name, if this is not over-ruled by WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with merge, but please keep George W. Blunt, No. 11 and merge USS G. W. Blunt (1861) into this one because it was a pilot boat that was used by the US Government during the civil war. Another example of a pilot boat being used this way is William Bell, No. 24. Pilot boat George W. Blunt belongs in the list of List of Northeastern U. S. Pilot Boats. Thanks! --Greg Henderson (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You created this article on 2019. The suggested target article has been here since 2007. I remain unpersuaded by this particular WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument until presented with precedent in favor of what you're suggesting, or good reasoning from those without personal connection interest. You also have a personal connection (family ties to pilot Joseph Henderson of this boat) with the pilot that maybe affecting your point of view. As mentioned to you repeatedly, such potential COI should be mentioned in your AfD participation. Graywalls (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls, I understand your concern. I have created many articles on other pilot boats, so not sure I need to add COI on each of these just because there may be a connection to Joseph Henderson. In writing these articles, my goal is a WP:NPOV. In terms of the above, the pilot boat George W. Blunt, No. 11, came first as it was built around 1856. It did not become the USS G. W. Blunt until 1861. Therefore, the mrege should have the name of the pilot boat with the section about Civil War and the transfer into government dispatch boats as USS G. W. Blunt. This would be consistent with other pilot boats used for government service. --Greg Henderson (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Various precedents, like HMS Amboyna (1796) suggest the final name is the most appropriate. Perhaps naval identities outrank civil ones too. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, in this case it was not the final name. After the Federal Government service, the pilot boat returned to service as a pilot boat as reported in primary New York newspapers and ship registration sources, e.g. Record of American and Foreign Shipping, 1877. --Greg Henderson (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added Before we merge, please take a look at a couple of new citations I have found regarding two George W. Blunt boats. The first George W. Blunt, No 11 was built in New York in 1856 and sold to the government in 1861. The second George W. Blunt was built in Boston in 1861 to take the place of the original George W. Blunt, which was sold to the government during the Civil War and sent South. The two boats shared the same name but had different start and end dates. See the following citations:[1][2] --Greg Henderson (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is just a routine announcement not too unlike so and so of this city crashed their make and model vehicle and died. The second one is primary source of zero contributing factor to notability. Graywalls (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls, the above is about not doing merge because of two boats with same name. In terms of notability, please see Secondary Source, which qualifies for WP:BASIC: Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The pilot boat G. W. Blunt was acquired by the Navy in 1861. --Greg Henderson (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that there were two boats, but of the article as it is, only the last two sections refer to the one built in 1861? Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are primary and secondary sources (see above) that say the New York pilot boat was sold to the Government in 1861 and the N.Y. Pilots bought a second boat that was built in Boston and used in the pilot boat service. --Greg Henderson (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok I see this ship was purchased to replace the original ship by the government. So I say merge into the "original ship"'s article is still appropriate. Graywalls (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The orginal ship being the G. W. Blunt Pilot Boat that the Governemnt then bought. Add to this, sources that say the pilot boat was sold to the government in 1861: So, the second G.W. Blunt, No 11 was built at Boston in 1861. She was purchased by the pilot corporation to take the place of the orginal G. W. Blunt (1858), which was sold to the government and G. W. Blunt acquired by the Navy in New York in 1861. I hope this helps. --Greg Henderson (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still inclined to merge both boats to the naval article. There's very little on the 2nd civil one & at least that avoids confronting the notability question. 11:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs)
  • comment Just because it's in Daily New York Herald doesn't mean it's an indication of much notability back then. The boat sinkage is akin to trivial reports of modern times reporting of so and so of Rural Route 1 wrecked his car. In the source https://www.newspapers.com/image/329399640/?terms=%22Pilot%2Bboat%2BG.%2BW.%2BBlunt%22 it's in the same section of paper that has trivial mundane things, for example: "A youth who was charged with stealing a piece of beaver cloth valued at $27 on the 21st of December from John G. Miller, pleaded guilty to petit larceny." Graywalls (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls, you are not getting my point. In the above citation, I was not talking about notability, but the fact that the newspaper source provides justification that there were two boats. The first boat served as a pilot-boat for the N. Y. Pilots, that was later sold to the US Government during the civil war. Then the pilots had to buy a second pilot-boat they named George W. Blunt, which was smaller and built in Boston not New York. Because of this, there is reason not to merge the two articles since one path was with the pilot-boat called George W. Blunt and the other path is the military history with the USS G.W. Blunt. If you combined them the history gets muduled. In terms of notability for the pilot boat, it is a perfect example of one of the orginal twenty-one 19th Century New York pilot-boats that existed in 1860 that we have an article about; the pilot-boat was discussed by a secondary source (Charles Edward Russell); the boat was bought by the US Government to serve in the Civil War; then a 2nd pilot boat was built in Boston to serve under the name George W. Blunt; quite an exciting history for an encyclopedia! --Greg Henderson (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and ideally merge in USS G. W. Blunt (1861). The news articles make it squeak past on notability for me; we have plenty of articles about accidents based on similar news sources when they're recent events. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable. There are reliable sources, including newspapers and published books. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - the two articles should be merged together along with their article histories & citations. Netherzone (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment so from what I understand, first boat was built, then it was sold to become an USS. Then the second boat was built as a replacement, and the second boat was wrecked. I'd say preserve the USS article that's been here since 2007, merge the essetial information from this article Greghenderson2006 created much later than the original and redirect it to the USS/original. That's unless precedent says otherwise. Graywalls (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Rubio presidential campaign endorsements, 2016[edit]

List of Mario Rubio presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Copy and paste creation from material already in Marco Rubio 2016 presidential campaign. - MrX 🖋 23:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - MrX 🖋 23:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Marco Rubio 2016 presidential campaign#Endorsements, where the content is contained. I question the appropriateness of a template hiding it. If it is too large for the parent article, then it should stay WP:SPLIT unless knowledgeable editors (i.e., not AFD drive-by commenters) think trimming is appropriate. postdlf (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The misspelling in the title makes it a particularly unlikely search term. pburka (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm...didn't notice that. I think outright deletion is appropriate here. postdlf (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTDIRECTORY Mis-spelled list cruft that serves no purpose. Four years later, who cares who endorsed him, especially since he dropped out of the race after the Super Tuesday primaries in March? If someone wants to know the names, Rubio's office no doubt has them - it's not up to Wikipedia to keep a tracking list like this. There is no notability reason for this as a stand-alone list on Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear violation of the spirit of not directory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Rename to Marco and then redirect to Marco Rubio 2016 presidential campaign#Endorsements Wm335td (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to create a new redirect to that section that would be fine, I think since the content/history of this was just copied and pasted from the parent article without proper process/attribution and it's at an incorrect title, we're better off just deleting it. postdlf (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Do not create duplicate articles for the mere sake of having an article. Reywas92Talk 05:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Duplicates content in another article and serves no purpose as a building block per WP:CLN. Title is misspelled so no reason for a redirect.   // Timothy :: talk  23:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SNOW Delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Democrats who oppose the 2020 Joe Biden presidential campaign[edit]

List of Democrats who oppose the 2020 Joe Biden presidential campaign (edit | 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 that claims to be a list of democrats who oppose Biden's campaign. Fails WP:LISTN. - MrX 🖋 23:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - MrX 🖋 23:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 07:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beat City[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient sources to establish WP:NGAME. Most references do not meet WP:RS. Article was originally moved to draftspace and rejected twice at AfC for the same reasons. —{CrypticCanadian} 23:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —{CrypticCanadian} 23:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The game has received significant coverage [1] [2] and Metacritic states Nintendo Power and Nintendo Gamer have also covered the game, although I have not have access to the original articles. According to WP:VG/S these are all reliable sources. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is coverage in 3 separate magazines on the Metacritic page, and Nintendo World Report. I agree that it probably should not have been created without actually mentioning those, but it is nevertheless clearly notable. Therefore per WP:SURMOUNTABLE it should stay.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Pass WP:GNG. OceanHok (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources listed here and in the article consist of press releases, passing mentions, and closely connected sources. I would expect to see at least three WP:INDEPENDENT sources that discuss the subject objectively, and in considerable detail. - MrX 🖋 12:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just looking at the Metacritic page, the reviews in Nintendo World Report and PALGN are both clearly significant coverage, meaning that this passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Z1720, I think article passes WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although Z1720's Gameindustry.biz source is merely a press release, this game's Metacritic entry lists reviews by PALGN, Nintendo World Report, GamesTM, Nintendo Gamer, and Nintendo Power - all reliable sources for game articles according to WP:VG/RS, and absolutely enough to pass GNG.--AlexandraIDV 11:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 18:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Kuvin[edit]

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

Independent coverage appears to be limited to quotes in the context of cases that he's worked on. I was unable to find significant, independent secondary coverage in reliable sources, although some unreliable tabloids do have some coverage. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 22:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep delete keep There seem to be many, many reports involving Kuvin, and he is often used as both an expert and player in these articles. This coverage is wide, though shallow. I suspect a reasonable article could be built by scrounging through for details (which vary story-to-story). Kuvin seems to have maintained this minor role in from 2009 to 2019[3] to 2020. Jlevi (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Edit: Nonetheless, this doesn't satisfy any notability guideline that I am aware of. This could probably be merged to some appropriate page. Jlevi (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC) And back to keep: 13:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are many sources on Kuvin and is a notable lawyer. I also can't think of a page that this this content could be merged to. ~ HAL333 14:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point to the 2 or 3 strongest? Perhaps I'm just not seeing them among the flood of passing mentions. Jlevi (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jlevi The main caveat is that they are most are in the context of the Epstein scandal:
  • One on one interview with NPR [4]
  • Article's main focus is a bold question by Kuvin [5]
  • This nypost article discusses his Maxwell prediction [6]
  • A Mother Jones article which mostly relies on quotes from Kuvin [7]
I'll try incorporating these into the article. I've also added a few more to the article. ~ HAL333 18:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I buy it. Jlevi (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Inuit clothing. Tone 18:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netcha[edit]

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

Apparent WP:V fail and, at least at present, a clear WP:NOTDICT fail. According to the source cited in the article—not even a sentence in a dictionary of clothing terms—it's a type of sealskin coat. But I cannot find any other sources to establish that this is a known term. Bringing this single-sentence substub here because I think it's possible I've missed something, perhaps under an alternate name or spelling. The one source cited also seems borderline on reliability to me. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greenland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Coolabahapple: I did search, but evidently not hard enough. I generally use DuckDuckGo which might not have been good for this particular purpose? Thanks for finding those documents. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no probs, thanks for prompt response. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment May I recommend instead a redirect to Inuit clothing, which I just mainspaced earlier tonight? The problem with this article (and temiak and kooletah, which I've already redirected) is that they are dictionary definitions of individual names of individual garments, which are better covered in the context of the whole Inuit clothing system. They're also outdated English transliterations of Inuit words, so they really shouldn't be used for article titles anyway. A "kooletah" is properly known as a qulittaq, for example. I have no idea what the real Inuit word for "netcha" is - nothing like it is mentioned in Sinews of Survival, which is one of the definitive works on the topic, and I can't find any similar words in online Inuit dictionaries. The best I can figure is that it's related to natsiq (ringed seal) or natsivak (hooded seal), and "kak" is a phoneme related to coats, so maybe it's a mangled version of something like that? Anyway, all that is a very long-winded way of saying it's better off redirected. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Premeditated Chaos: I (almost!) wholeheartedly endorse this suggestion. I was thinking the same thing—that this garment is probably more properly known under a different, less antiquated, English transliteration. The lone source in this article was first published in 1957, and I would note that a number of the sources Coolabahapple mentioned above, although they do use the term, are quite old; I'd be reluctant to base an article on sources that still refer to "Eskimo" clothing, for instance. The reason why I'm not super enthusiastic about simply redirecting this is that, per your comment, it's quite unclear what the correct name for this garment is. But redirects are cheap and if a redirect could send someone to your new article, that seems like an excellent outcome. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Scott Harris[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, the only coverage other than interviews (not independent) and mere mentions is in this PR piece [8]. If we had an article on SocialSurvey we could redirect to there, but we don't. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable businessman and public speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Speed Poker Open[edit]

World Speed Poker Open (edit | 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 poker tournament. No references in the article and none found other than database entries. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable tournament.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. Before showed nothing but database style entries and promos   // Timothy :: talk  23:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Manhart[edit]

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

No evidence of enduring notoriety that would make this more than a BLP1E. A furore for posing in playboy does not really provide any basis for a biography and a minor fracas over protecting a flag isn't signifiant either. Together, its still inadequate. Spartaz Humbug! 21:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, no lasting notability. Other military women mentioned on the page who posed for Playboy don't have pages. Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails SOLDIER, also WP:BIO1E - no lasting notability. Perhaps there should be an article about the phenomenon of armed forces women posing nude and the results for their careers, but an individual article isn't justified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a very clear violation of one event rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has attracted significant coverage. Significant legal case. I understand that Americans want to sweep this sort of thing under the rug, but that is only more reason to keep the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaming Club World Poker Championship[edit]

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

Not a notable televised poker tournament. No sources in the article and no substantial coverage found; I can't even verify it was televised - just directory entries that the tournament exists. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this appears to be an article without sources, something we need to rid Wikipedia of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BEFORE showed nothing but database style entries and promo.   // Timothy :: talk  23:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pelin Ermiş[edit]

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

This is the second time that this article is being nominated for deletion (You can see the first nomination here). As with the previous time, the article relies heavily on IMDb, a generally unreliable source for bios, and mostly discusses the series that she has appeared in rather than the subject herself. Taking factors mentioned in Wikipedia:NACTOR into consideration, she hasn't had any significant roles, hasn't received any major awards and has a very small fan base (70k on Instagram which is basically nothing). Styyx submitted a request for the article to be undeleted (see the request) and I thank him for his effort in finding sources. However, the references that he has mentioned ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]) simply talk about how her appearance has changed over the years. They are NOT detailed biographies or interviews that discuss her acting career in detail, not to mention that she doesn't have a notable acting career to elaborate on anyway. Keivan.fTalk 21:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I discussed against keeping it in the first AfD, but I was the only one participating, hence it got soft deleted. Now finding more sources I thought a larger discussion is required to reach a clear consensus. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 08:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing the sourcing. I wish I had more to add, but it just isn't there. Maybe WP:TOOSOON? EverybodyEdits (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Michaels[edit]

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

One line of text and a list of shared or scene awards do not meet the GNG. The only specific award is unsung starlet - which kind of proves my point. Fails N & GNG Spartaz Humbug! 21:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article was kept in 2015 solely on the 2015 understanding of the now-superseded PORNBIO SNG. A later 2016 consensus held that niche awards like Unsung Starlet/Swordsman/Siren didn't meet PORNBIO's "well-known and significant industry award" test. The references are low quality, and I didn't find significant enough RS coverage in independent searches to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources are low quality and we no longer give deference to the promotionalist awards dished out like candy by the pornographic film industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 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 keep. Weak keep is still a keep. Tone 16:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Asset Modeling Language[edit]

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

Coverage seems to be limited to PR and press in less-than-reliable cryptocurrency publications like Coindesk (RSP entry) (here's some from CoinTelegraph, a publication I'm not familiar with, but that still look PRish: [17]). Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. N.b. that the article was originally drafted by editors blocked for spamming, although it has since then received attention from editors in good standing. signed, Rosguill talk 21:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think these 2 citations currently in the article might be reasonable: [18][19]. One is from a Forbes writer (not contributor), and the other is an interview for a seemingly-serious ACM-affiliated journal, and it includes a fair bit of secondary commentary from the journal/interviewer. In addition, I found a couple minor sources that don't sway my opinion due to briefness or non-independence, but may be helpful for expanding details in the article: [20] [21]. This source might just barely have enough of its own analysis to be described as independent: [22]. Jlevi (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misread that Forbes piece. Still, all in all I think we're short of GNG. The ACM-affiliated piece is more than a fluff interview, but all of the actual information about DAML is still coming directly from an affiliated source. signed, Rosguill talk 03:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: This may be WP:TOOSOON, or it may be a turkey. But I was interested enough to broswe through stuff a little. That isnt policy based though. I likely understand the money flow behind this one though. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:58, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf's Gang[edit]

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

Completely non-notable game. Cannot find any sources, even for a redirect and a one-sentence mention. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bilibili. After reviewing a remarkably long discussion, which has spilled out and seen a remarkable amount of bludgeoning, there is pretty clear consensus to redirect. I will also be protecting the article, users interested in recreating it (if referencing quality increases) can go through AFC. The very fact that there are 109 external links and the deletion discussion is now 5x longer than the article indicates that something is up. While Marvin Twen has asked an administrator to review all sources presented, and I have, at the end of the day the closer is assessing consensus, not their own opinion, and consensus here is to redirect. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Rui[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Refs are PR. scope_creepTalk 21:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, there is significant coverage from reliable news sources. Refs are not 'PR'. Also compare with the references used on Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and other CEOs. If the sources are reliable and significant enough to be used for these people, then they are reliable enough to be used for this article.Marven Twen (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Looking at the refs in turn:
  1. Management profile. Self-published source. Non-RS. Not independent, not secondary, not in-depth.
  2. Forbes. Contributor. Non-RS
  3. IPO listing information for company. Non-RS
  4. Bloomberg profile. Paid profile. Non-RS
  5. Bloomberg story. Passing mention. More about the company.
  6. Press-release. Non-RS.
  7. Forbes. Non-RS.
  8. Wallmine. Trash.
  9. WSJ. Company profile. Not specific to BLP.
  10. Interview style article. Primary non-independent. Looks like PR.

I'm not doing anymore, they are all junk. scope_creepTalk 11:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Scope Creep, please avoid getting emotional as that can interfere with one's judgement. Note that there is a serious issue of double standards in this nomination and evaluation of sources. Look at Mark Zuckerberg's page:
  1. [23] is a passing mention not specific to Zuckerberg yet it is still used as a source on his article.
  2. [24] is an online profile as well.
Or take a look at Bill Gates' page:
  1. [25], [26]: these are passing mentions, but they are still used on the article.
There are many examples of such sources, not just on the pages for Gates or Zuckerberg, but on many other CEO's wiki pages as well.
These sources are not 'junk' or 'trash'. If the sources are reliable and noteworthy enough to be used on Zuckerberg or Gates' pages, then they are reliable enough to be used on this article as well. The article subject is also a billionaire and the CEO of a significant internet company and has clear coverage in various languages, with Wikipedia articles existing in these languages as well. The purpose is not to go on a crusade to destroy every single article on the site, but to expand and make Wikipedia more encyclopedic. Thanks for your understanding.Marven Twen (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: changing to Strong Keep. I found and added so many more sources of significant coverage, and there is still so much more. These are the same kinds of sources used on Zuckerberg, Gates, and other reputable CEOs. They come from Bloomberg News, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, US Security Exchange Commission, and much more. This is more than enough ample evidence to support keeping this article.
Moreover there are much more quality sources similar to those on the article Todd Krasnow, which survived afd and was kept [27].
And I can continue to expand more if needed. Because of the sheer amount of double standards and prejudice apparent in this afd nomination, I strongly urge that this afd nomination be withdrawn and closed and the article kept. Thanks. Marven Twen (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
He has also led numerous significant internet companies including Cheetah Mobile, Kingsoft, and Bilibili.Marven Twen (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hi @Marven Twen: It is probably best to concentrate on this article. For Todd Krasnow, he was awarded a heavy-duty award that is coveted, by the folk in his industry. It was and is, absolutely notable. Even without passing mentions, Zuckerberg and Gates have been present in the western culture for so long now, in any situation, they would be notable. It don't think it is a double standard and its disingenuous for you to suggest it. If you man didn't spend so much money on PR, there might be some secondary information showing up, that could be used as a source. It it is all PR and that is the nature of business now. There was even a recent BBC Radio 4 discussion about PR and how it is now hard for decision makers/suppliers/interested parties to actually make contact with decision makers inside a company, because their is a layer of PR that keeps them out. Everything goes through that lens of PR and they generate so much branding muck that impossible for real people to interact. It is almost like a shield. It hard to find real info. It was a very curious conversation and also enlightening. scope_creepTalk 14:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - looks like someone dropped a WP:REFBOMB on this article to boost the number of footnotes present in the article as high as possible. When you need 8 refs for the opening sentence just to verify he's an internet entrepreneur and CEO, that indicates a potential issue with WP:GNG for me. Either delete, or in the alternative, redirect to bilibili. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to billibil per ATD (but maybe salt against recreation)]; he may become sufficiently notable in the future to warrant an article on the English Wikipedia. That time is not now. This is a case of CEO does what a CEO does with a concomitant layer of promotionalism surrounding him. This is a BLP, and we should be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Likewise, he fails the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ——Serial 13:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content. ——Serial 13:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Response[edit]

Note this response will be lengthy so it is broken up into parts, but give it some time, and please read through to the end. This is important. Thanks.

@Scope creep: I think we are making progress, and I would very much like to end on a consensus to keep, but first we would have a much more productive conversation if you avoid using personally-charged phrases like 'trash', 'junk', 'you man'.

As for the double standards, it works like this: you say source A is unreliable for this article, however source A is still being used on another notable CEO's article like Zuckerberg or Gates. If one says a source is unreliable when it is used on this article, but reliable when used on another article, that is double standards. If it is reliable enough to be used there, then it is reliable enough to be used here.

As for notability I gave numerous sources and pieces of evidence for this in the above response.

  • He is the leader, even CEO, of multiple significant companies Cheetah Mobile, Kingsoft, and Bilibili. This makes him notable.
  • He is a billionaire, and there are only a handful of billionaires in the world, nevermind in Asia. This also makes him notable.
  • Yes, I understand there is so much commotion in the world because of the COVID pandemic. However, as fellow wiki editors, I am sure you agree that we have higher standards. The pandemic does not give us an excuse to bully on Asian CEOs.
  • He already has wikipedia articles in Japanese and Chinese. The coverage in these languages alone already merits making an article on him, and even then, he has much coverage in English language media.
  • Even if that BBC radio message you mentioned is true, your specific usage of PR or press release is so broad and vague that almost every source seems to qualify as PR, which is ridiculous. All I can say is 'lighten up' please.
  • There are numerous sources specific to the subject that is not PR.

Moreover, he has significant coverage from reputable, independent, non-PR sources such as Bloomberg News, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, US Security Exchange Commission, etc. Here are some:

  1. [28], significant coverage from Bloomberg, this is no PR, it is independent. Moreover Bloomberg is also used on Gates and Zuckerberg and many other places, so it is reliable coverage.
  1. [29], Forbes is also used on Gates and Zuckerberg and many other places [30]
  1. [31], so it is reliable coverage.
Not specific.
  1. [32], this is significant coverage, regardless of whether it is a contributor or not, that is irrelevant.
Not a reliable source.
According to WP:FORBES, Forbes is a reliable source.
  1. [33], if you can read Japanese (and not just the Google translated version which often distorts the original meaning), then this is also independent and reliable, not PR at all. Moreover it is from a notable French source Agence France-Presse.
  2. [34], similar note as above from another independent Japanese source
Financial announcements.
According to WP:BLP, there is nothing wrong with financial announcements, especially since these articles cover more biographical detail.
  1. [35], same note as above except from reliable Chinese language source Tencent
  1. [36], same note as above except from Jieman
  1. [37], even if there is some interview, a lot of other information is secondary, independent, and reliable
  1. [38], reliable source from USA SEC
IPO listing document. Non-notable.
According to WP:BLP, there is nothing wrong with an IPO listing document. Moreover this is from the US SEC so this is notable.

Even then, I can add many more sources to show this person is obviously notable and satisfies WP:GNG

News Wire. A press-release.
No it is not. According to [40], Bloomberg News is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marven Twen (talk • contribs) 22:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC) — Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Primary.
According to WP:BLP primary and self-published sources are acceptable, especially since this is not used exclusively and it reports facts. [42]
For the second time. Forbes is NON-RS.
Forbes is used on Zuckerberg and Gates. Moreover, according to [44], WP:FORBES, Forbes is a reliable source.
Fails WP:NCORP. Capital raised.
Paid profile.
No evidence that it is paid for. Also per [47], Bloomberg is reliable.
This is about the company. No mention of the founder and its not suitable for a WP:BLP.
That is announcement in the form of a press-release. It is not suitable for a WP:BLP.
It is a paid for profile page. It is a very-low quality references and generally would not be considered for a BLP.
No evidence that it is paid for. Also per [51], Reuters is reliable.
Non-RS. Not a reliable source.
Forbes is used on Zuckerberg and Gates. Moreover, according to [54], WP:FORBES, Forbes is a reliable source.
Company profile page. Not really applicable to a BLP.
Non-RS.
This is sigcov from staff writer Russell Flannery. According to WP:FORBES this is reliable.
This is RS and in-depth.
This is RS and somewhat in-depth.
Capitals and share transactions. Not suitable for a BLP article.

Non-RS. Not a reliable source.

According to WP:FORBES, Forbes is a reliable source.
That is called passing mention. Not in-depth.
There are multiple mentions to the subject within the article. This is extensive coverage.
Share listing announcement. Completely non-RS.
According to WP:BLP, there is nothing wrong with an IPO listing document. Moreover this is from the US SEC so this is notable.
Another financial announcement and is unsuitable for a BLP. It would fails WP:NCORP if it was a company article.
According to WP:BLP, there is nothing wrong with a financial announcement.
This is an announcement of capital raised. It fails WP:NCORP and is unsuitable for a BLP.
According to WP:BLP, there is nothing wrong with an announcement of raised capital.

At first, I did not understand where your deep hatred towards this article came from, hatred apparent since you used the words 'junk' and 'trash' in our conversation. But looking at your past history, it seems that you once had an incident with AFD involving an article you wanted to keep so badly. [68]

There was an article called Ferdinand Feichtner you wanted to keep so much that you started hurling personal attacks at others [69] and you were even banned for it [70] [71]. Moreover you used an IP sock to evade the ban [72] [73].

This past and your current crusade to delete almost every new article on wikipedia essentially invalidate this Afd nomination. It seems that you really wanted to keep Ferdinand Feichtner in Afd, but because it was deleted, you went on a revenge spree to delete every other new article, to pick on others to give yourself a sense of satisfaction and justice. [74]

If your hatred towards this article subject Chen Rui stems from a desire for revenge, then that is extremely unhealthy and forbidden on wikipedia per WP:REVENGE, nevermind you are targeting the wrong person.

So my question to you is: do you want to become the same kind of person who deleted Ferdinand Feichtner, an article you really valued and wanted kept, or do you want to move on from that past, admit the notability of the subject, and keep this article. Scope Creep, we can help each other. But if that past continues to haunt you, and you insist on finding every excuse to prolong this debate, then that is counterproductive to the spirit of wikipedia to make it as encyclopedic as possible. Ultimately, we are all here to build an encyclopedia, so even I must admit that I empathize with your frustration when one of your articles was deleted. Hopefully, the same mistake is not repeated.

Initially there were 3 sources on this article, so I gave you the benefit of doubt and added 20+ more sources and vastly expanded the content. You said you do not want to review any more sources, and I can understand.

I do not think either you or I want to waste anymore time on this debate. This CEO has more than enough notable evidence to merit keeping this article. All I am asking is that you please close this AfD case and keep the article. If you do, it would show how much you have grown and moved on from the past, and you will be even more respected not just by me, but also by the wiki community as a whole. Thank you very much. Marven Twen (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'll review these tomorrow. If they are not all junk. It is a lot and that amount definitely counts, but it is the quality more so than anything else. scope_creepTalk 23:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The majority of these are junk, capital and share announcements, duplicates of the same articles, passing mentions, press-releases, company and paid profiles, and a whole load of non-RS scrap for an editor who is likely a paid editor and part of the team that does the PR, and who managed to move the article from draft, three times. The article is now junk and should be WP:TNT'd. It completely ignores Wikipedia policies, as a kind of right to exist article, because Zuckerberg/Gates has a article. There is 2 references that are full features. scope_creepTalk 22:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Scope Creep, you are making repeated false accusations against me, and you are getting emotional. Many of the sources are actually reliable, not 'junk' as you often like to say. See my responses above for reference. Marven Twen (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Salient points are that
  1. WP:BLP does not preclude financial statements, especially when those news sources give biographical info outside capital and share info.
  2. WP:BLP does not completely preclude primary or self-published sources, especially since there are only 1 or 2 above, out of 20+ sources, and moreover they are used sparingly, not for the whole article.
  3. According to [75], WP:FORBES, Forbes, Bloomberg, Reuters are reliable sources.

Given this there is a plethora of RS to go off, besides those that Scope creep mentioned. This article merits a strong keep.

Also Scope creep, please stop editing and obfuscating my responses. Marven Twen (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Tending delete, but willing to change my mindChanged to keep below. We need a couple of reliable, independent sources with in-depth coverage of the article subject (as opposed to the companies he has been involved in, with passing mention of him as an individual). The (main?) contributor has provided lots of sources, in the article and here, but the ones I've spot checked (and can read, due to language issues) all seem to fail at least one of these requirements. I am sensitive to the fact that cultural bias could get in the way here, so I am happy to change my mind, but only if someone provides 2-3 such sources, and if they are in another language, someone uninvolved verifies they are reliable, independent, and indepth. @Marven Twen:: 1) Once notability is established, it is quite fine to use also other sources to reference specific items in the article where there is a need, so your frustration that similar sources to some in your long list are being used in other articles, is misplaced. To move ahead, you (or someone else) needs to identify which of the long list are the 2-3 minimum that are reliable, independent, and in-depth. 2) Your personal attacks on the nominator aren't helping. 3) Given your involvement and passion here, it is fair to ask: do you have any conflict of interest on this article, whether paid or not (e.g. personal friendship or professional link}? This is not an accusation, merely a reasonable concern given the circumstances. @Scope creep:: Your concern for keeping promotion off wikipedia is appreciated, as well as your feeling of being personally attacked here. However, your language isn't helping either; I'd suggest in the future making the same points you are making without using loaded terms like "junk" or "PR". Martinp (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Martinp, firstly, I want to thank you for trying to understand both points of view. Second, to answer your other question, Scope creep has already repeatedly falsely accused me of this (COI and Paid), and I have repeatedly said no. I have nothing to do with the subject, and I am not paid. Yet he continues to falsely accuse me of such. [76] [77] So while Scope creep's point of view is understood, can people understand my point of view--how he is repeatedly personally attacking me? Moreover, on this AfD page, I have asked him repeatedly to tone down his language, especially the use of second person 'you' along with words like 'junk' and 'trash' (which I thank you Martinp for realizing). From the beginning, I have tried hard to use third person and avoid 2nd person. However, he has repeatedly made edits to many parts of my own response that are relevant to Afd [78], violating [79]. I am just stating facts, and I am just putting this here in response to Martinp's specific question as many of the responses here are heavily one-sided seeing only Scope creep's pov, which is unfair. Anyways, I'd rather not discuss these things further, but rather discuss the sources and how they further demonstrate the notability of the article. Thank you. Marven Twen (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing significant coverage of the subject, only passing mentions and coverage of bilibili. Even if the article is kept, this is still a case of WP:BLOWITUP. Woodroar (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Yup! refs are PR junk. Furthermore @Marven Twen, attacking Scope_creep with nonsensical comments like this certainly doesn’t land credibility to any of your claims. Do keep that in mind for future sake. The ref bombing also didn’t help, isn’t helping & will not help.Celestina007 14:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to bilibili. Despite copious refbombing, there is no evidence of notability independent of the parent article and notability is not inherited. None of the references that are available in the article or in searches satisfy the three prongs of significance, independence, and reliability. What sources are available that are significant are about the company, not its CEO, and the ones which are about him are neither independent nor reliable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to bilibili and protect per SN - the sourcing just isn't there to support notability, I couldn't find any that isn't either affiliated, unreliable or passing mentions. GirthSummit (blether) 16:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry he is not notable at all. Hes rich, thats it as far as I can see. Really does look like just a paid for Wiki page to meGiant-DwarfsTalk 23:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources:

[80], [81] [82] [83] [84] [85], [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92]

Based on [93], WP:V, other language sources can be used, especially since they supplement the already existing English sources. Chen Rui has articles in Japanese and Chinese already as well. Moreover, he is the leader and CEO of multiple companies. All this put together clearly pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTE, meriting a strong keep of this article.Marven Twen (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is another refbomb. Which are the THREE sources which you believe are the best, and most clearly demonstrate the subject's notability according to our guidelines? GirthSummit (blether) 16:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources:

  1. [94]
  2. [95]: According to [96] Xinhua’s use should be attributed. However, this is not a contentious issue regarding China, and the in-depth reliable coverage on the subject establishes notability.
  3. [97]

So these are three such independent reliable sources, but I also want to bring up two sources that colleague Scope creep himself said were reliable and in depth. [98]

  1. [99],
  2. [100]

Also according to [101] [102], Chen Rui won the "Business Model Innovator of the Year” (well-known within China), so according to WP:ANYBIO, this could further help establish reputability.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this. Marven Twen (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

These all look like industry puff pieces to me. Woodroar (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, Xinhua is not even industry, it is state-run, and its use is acceptable so long as attributed and not involving contentious political topics as per [103]. Second, 'puff pieces' is a weasel phrase. Third, [104] [105] do not forbid these sources, especially since they give reliable significant coverage. If allowed, may I ask what User:Girth Summit thinks since he asked the question first. Thank you. Marven Twen (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Well, xinhuanet doesn't have the level of reliability that I would look for in a source that was being used to establish notability. I'm not familiar enough with the sina.com website to comment on its reliability, and I'm relying on machine translation which probably isn't the best for getting to tone across, but I confess that they do look pretty puffy to me. I'll watch this discussion and see what others think, but I'm not persuaded at present. GirthSummit (blether) 17:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the two sources Scope creep himself said were reliable and in depth [106]? I will repeat them here for convenience.

  1. [107],
  2. [108]

Marven Twen (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The first one might be usable; the second one has someone else's byline, but it is almost entirely written by the subject in the first person, so does not help establish notability. GirthSummit (blether) 17:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, true primary sources are to be used in caution for an article [109], but it also contains some independent secondary coverage, and the info appears reliable.Marven Twen (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Here is also a third source [110] from Bloomberg News, secondary and reliable per [111]. It is already in the article, but I raise it here since it has not been specifically commented on.Marven Twen (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Marven Twen:, there is no requirement for !voters to analyze every one of your refbombed citations but since I did read through that article, I'll comment. The Bloomberg article is one of the few that is in a RS. Unfortunately, only all of one sentence is about Chen. It fails to establish notability by any reasonable standard. Please read WP:BLUDGEON before posting any other supposed sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, in [112], there are clearly multiple sentences and at least 8 paragraphs that mention Chen. Marven Twen (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The sum total material actually about Chen: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Chen Rui, 41...his 24.2 percent stake now worth $1 billion...Chen was born in 1978...Chen studied communication engineering at Chengdu University of Information Technology, and joined ...Kingsoft Corp. after graduating in 2001. Nine years later, he co-founded Cheetah Mobile That this tiny amount of information is spread over about half of the column inches does not change my assessment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That amount is not 'tiny' but I will let others make their own judgement. Marven Twen (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Marven Twen, can I please ask, have you ever contributed in any way at all to any other page, discussion or talk page anywhere on Wiki apart from this one page?Giant-DwarfsTalk 22:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Giant-Dwarfs: No, you're right: with 31 out of 42 mainspace edits to either the Chen Rui or Billibili pages, this is a paid editor with a bigger conflict of interest than Van Gogh with sunflower futures. ——Serial 05:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also say attacks such as this [113] immediately against me for the simple reason I did not agree with you do not show your case or manner in the best light Giant-DwarfsTalk 23:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Dwarfs, these personal attacks and false accusations against me are not relevant to the Afd. But since you do ask here, I feel somewhat obligated to explain to others: that was just a suggestion based on Giant Dwarf's past editing experience. He only created his account recently and made his first edit yesterday on August 28 [114], around the same time as the ANI report was submitted by User:Scope creep. Moreover Giant-Dwarfs has made similar edits to the ANI and the Chen Rui Afd supporting Scope creep, indicating spa. [115] [116] Also Giant-Dwarfs' recent edit [117] on 197.89.19.112's signature indicate that he is an ip sock of User:197.89.19.112 which is currently blocked for personal attacks [118][119]. Also, these users tend to make many spelling and grammatical mistakes, which is unacceptable by wiki standards. It is likely Giant-Dwarfs is a sock of somebody, even if not Scope creep.

I see no point in continuing this ridiculous side-conversation on this page. I will let others judge based on these above facts. I am only answering once because Giant Dwarfs brought it up in an attempt to cast aspersions on me. But the ANI is a more appropriate place for this off-topic tangent. Marven Twen (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to bilibili and consider salting. I looked at all 24 citations, relying on Google Translate for the Chinese ones. Only 2 are anything like in-depth - My Story and Chen talked to me about his experiences - which are based on interviews and are therefore not independent. This is WP:REFBOMBING. Zero secondary WP:RS sources = fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my mind to keep. Above (now struck) I wrote I was tending to delete. However, looking through both the refbombing and some of the unfortunate discourse on this page, the following 3 sources raised above by @Marven Twen: are significant enough to move me into the keep column: [120] [121] [122] . I don't know enough about Chinese press dynamics to be 100% confident exactly how independent they are, but except when public figures do something truly controversial, I do think we'd be surprised how much lazy paraphrasing of information initially furnished by subjects makes its way unchallenged into independent, so-called "reliable" sources anyway, so I'm prepared to potentially cut a bit of slack here, especially given legitimate concerns about cultural bias. These seems good enough. Based on this individual's business accomplishments, it does seem we should try have an article about him if we can, and these 3 sources (and potentially others in the whole excessive range of sources identified) mean we can. I also note that though Marven Twen has made few contributions outside this subject area, in response to my (and others') requests above, they have asserted they are not paid and do not have a COI. While I was initially suspicious given the nature of their involvement and interaction style, I am also willing to accept their assurances, and note that personal enthusiasm can be a powerful force for writing Wikipedia articles! Martinp (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so sure. Breaking these down:
    Jiemian.com is a relatively new news/social media site with an incredibly low bar for publishing content. They do have staff reporters, but those articles have a "reporter" by-line and mention the author's role, like senior editor and senior reporter. This article's author doesn't appear to be a staff reporter, nor can I find any mention of them writing for reliable media outlets. I also can't find any reports of Jiemian winning any journalism awards, which casts doubt on their reputatation. Much of their content appears blatantly promotional, like translating this article by Margaret Atwood to promote a Chinese translation of The Testaments.
    The Sina source is about the company. Chen Rui is quoted several times but there is very little biographical information about him, essentially mentioning 2 or 3 places that he's worked. WP:GNG and WP:BIO require significant coverage of the subject and I don't think this is it.
    The Shine.cn source was written by Chen Rui himself for their series of "40 People, 40 Stories, 40 Years" feel-good puff pieces. There's a very small biographical section at the top, but that's pretty typical for promotional content like this.
    Personally, I don't think these sources meet our requirements for coverage, especially for living persons. Woodroar (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Summary of some points and remaining questions of this Afd conversation

I am going to quote what User:Martinp said as it is quite insightful and relevant to our conversation. I am sensitive to the fact that cultural bias could get in the way here, so I am happy to change my mind, but only if someone provides 2-3 such sources, and if they are in another language, someone uninvolved verifies they are reliable, independent, and indepth.

Also, I am sensitive to User:Eggishorn’s advice, so I will quote part of the WP:BLUDGEON as I think it is important for all of us. Never reply to a comment right after you see it. Wait a bit, clear your thoughts, and make sure they are saying what you think they are saying. Often, someone else will reply back and correct an error or offer some insight that is new to you. Give other editors enough time to agree with you.

Also, taking into account WP:REFBOMB and User:Girth Summit’s WP:THREE, I will try to give a few sources at a time.

I gave some time for others to put some thoughts. All I want to do is summarize the current state of some of the sources.

  1. [123], Scope Creep said this is RS and in-depth. Girth Summit also said this may be usable.
  1. [124], No consensus, jury is still out. All I will say is that Bloomberg News is RS and that more than half the article is about Chen. I will let these facts speak for themselves.
  1. [125], [126] No consensus.

Thus, based on Martinp’s advice, we have at least 1 RS (possibly 2 or more based on other people's responses), and we need at least one more to establish notability.

Here are 3-5 more. I could have put much more, but I deliberately limited the number.

  1. [127]
  2. [128]
  3. [129]
  4. [130]
  5. [131]

And before a user tries to say they are ‘all this or all that’, could we try to analyze each one at a time rather than assign one cover term to everything (which is hardly ever the case).

If anything, I was hoping an established admin preferably familiar with the Chinese language could make an objective assessment of these sources. Many people here already admit that they cannot read Japanese or Chinese fluently, and moreover Google Translate gives inadequate translations. That is fine, but it is ridiculous to say that a source is unreliable just because it was written in a foreign language.

But I understand that users--nevermind admins--have no obligation to comment. I respect that. I am just saying if one comments, can we please analyze each in detail as that might be more beneficial to the conversation.

I am pretty sure at least one of the sources satisfies all three: independence, sigcov, and reliability. If even then, somebody tries to wantonly dismiss all of these nearing 50+ references for billionaire CEO Chen Rui who has lots of coverage in multiple languages, then all one can conclude--as Martin hinted--is that there is serious WP:BIAS and WP:SBEXT inherent in the Wikipedia Afd process, exacerbated by all the anti-Asian media involving the global COVID-19 pandemic.

Anyways, these systemic biases are things I unfortunately cannot change. The only thing I am able to do is continue showing more evidence of notability and sigcov for Rui. Thanks. I hope somebody understands and keeps this article.

At this point, it is perhaps best for an admin to take leadership and make an authoritative objective assessment of the sources. Thanks. Marven Twen (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Message to the admin who closes this discussion: With the 7 day deadline finally approaching, I think most of us here would agree that there has been extensive debate from multiple parties expressing sundry views. If I may politely ask, even if this debate is not closed as Keep, can it at least be closed as No Consensus?

It is in none of our interests to prolong this debate needlessly as that would only invite further trouble. We all want to get along with our lives and move on, and we do not want our lives to be forestalled by a single dramatic AfD.

It has been a long week. If the debate is closed as 'No Consensus' or Keep and the article stays as is, I myself will take a wiki vacation and not edit anything for a week, perhaps even a month or longer. Thank you very much for your consideration on this. Marven Twen (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the author has mentioned me in one of their various summaries/closing statements, I'll just note that my position has not changed. The sources are weak, and spammy, and while some of them are better than others I'm not persuaded that GNG is met. My position remains that this should be redirected to the company he is head of, and that the redirect be protected to prevent recreation. Should better sourcing become available in future, a new article can be written and submitted to AfC, and the protection lifted upon its acceptance. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 21:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Attili[edit]

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

Probable promotional attempt for young singer whose closest brush with notability was as a mid-level contestant on X Factor Italy. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fulvio Tomaino, her vocal coach, which was created by the same inexperienced user who may be affiliated with both individuals. This user fudged the footnotes by linking to Miss Attili's promotional sites, which largely consist of reprinted press releases and softball introductory interviews hyping her attempts to get started as a singer and model. I can find no coverage of her in significant and reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an overly promotional article on a singer who does not meet our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fulvio Tomaino[edit]

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

Behind-the-scenes guy who does not inherit notability from his associates. As a musician, Tomaino has only received some brief mentions as a session singer in works by other people. He has a vocal coaching business that is also only listed briefly in the credits for some of its students. Tomaino's closest brush with notability is through coaching a contestant on Italy's X Factor (Martina Attili, herself questionably notable). The articles for Tomaino and Attili were created by the same inexperienced user, who not only fudged the sources but may be affiliated with both individuals. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I've had this on my watchlist since it was created, and I think the nominator has summed it up well. The subject has been playing the bars and clubs of Rome for years, but singers in bars covering old songs are ten a penny. I thought it might be possible that the subject may have achieved some notability as a manager, but as the singers they manage have been considered non-notable, it's unlikely that Mr. Tomaino is notable himself. Richard3120 (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just Peck[edit]

Just Peck (edit | 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 can't find any secondary coverage of this film whatsoever. No results on BoxOfficeMojo, which suggests it wasn't released in theaters. It certainly exists (is for sale on Amazon) and the cast includes Brie Larson but that isn't sufficient for an article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See comment below. Fails WP:NFO and WP:GNG. I searched Google, JSTOR, ProQuest for articles, and Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for reviews and did not find significant coverage. Z1720 (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article indicates that the film involved at least nine actors, and several other people, with articles. It would make little sense to turn all the links in their filmographies to redlinks, thereby removing relevant information about their careers and creating holes in the referencing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If one could only look at reliable sources, I think one would be hard-pressed to prove this film ever existed. Unfortunately, articles can't be written out of nothing. Jlevi (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have absolutely no indication of any reviews of the film. The fact that many of the creators have articles does not mean we need to have an article on this film. Lots of notable people are involved in some projects that are not notable. Plus, Wikipedia has long created lots of articles on actors and actresses who do not actually meet any reasonable notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter point may be true enough in other cases but does not apply here: Adam Arkin, Camryn Manheim, and Keir Gilchrist, among others, are highly notable actors, and Brie Larson is a featured article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe articles cannot inherit notability, as per the WP:INHERIT essay. I remain as delete because I cannot find sources that show notability per WP:GNG. To change to keep I would need sources that show significant coverage of Just Peck in reliable sources. If the film is notable in an actor's career, perhaps it can be mentioned in that actor's article. Z1720 (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's clearly a minor and largely forgotten film, but no one has addressed the point I made above that deleting the article would leave pointless redlinks in a dozen articles and weaken their referencing. Leaving the article alone, however, would be completely harmless. So what is the value of deleting it? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The commentator above stated, "Leaving the article alone, however, would be completely harmless." I disagree. This article has no citations, meaning we cannot verify the information (WP:V) and it contains entirely original research (WP:NOR). Furthermore, we are having difficulty finding WP:RS that can be used for citations. As an encyclopedia, it's important that we hold ourselves to a consistent standard which we can showcase when someone challenges our work. The harm of keeping this article is that it breaks the core policies we gave ourselves for building the encyclopedia. The value of deleting it is stating, "We cannot verify the information in the article, so we at Wikipedia would rather have no information than a chance of publishing incorrect information." If a standard needs to be changed, perhaps an WP:RfC might be a place to continue that conversation.
In response to the concern about redlinks, there are 22 mainspace articles that link to Just Peck. If this article is deleted, perhaps we can work together to remove the wikilinks. Z1720 (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This AfD raises some interesting meta-issues, which I have discussed in an essay, here. I would welcome any comments on its talkpage. My thanks to everyone here for a thought-provoking discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just another case of WP:IGNORINGATD. Why wouldn't you merge this into a page like List of Brie Larson performances rather than deleting it? The movie is certainly lacking in coverage but this is so bad it's good as it makes #1 in the 20 Forgettable '00s Teen Comedies Only True Fans Remember. And if you search carefully you can actually find a review – see the Oklahoma Gazette. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is really scraping for sources, but they do exist; they're short, but they are multiple, from Wikipedia:Reliable sources (most of them) that we at least have Wikipedia articles about (all of them), and are specifically about the film as such (all but the Larson interview). That meets WP:GNG, though not by a lot, granted. This will never be an FA, but between these sources, and User:Newyorkbrad's concern of making for a red link in quite a few articles about more notable actors, it can make a perfectly respectable stub. --GRuban (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Short article about distribution of the film. Kay, Jeremy (5 May 2009). "American World Pictures picks up Just Peck". Screen Daily. Retrieved 27 August 2020.
    • Short newspaper review. Lott, Rod (September 12, 2011). "Hesher / Just Peck". Oklahoma Gazette. Retrieved 27 August 2020. (Also mentioned by Andrew Davidson immediately above.)
    • Brie Larson speaks about how this connects her with Keir Gilchrist and their TV series United States of Tara. Orange, B. Alan (5 May 2015). "'The Gambler' Interview with Brie Larson | EXCLUSIVE". MovieWeb. Retrieved 27 August 2020.
    • Another short newspaper review. "Cinefiles". Colorado Springs Independent. September 29, 2011. Archived from the original on September 13, 2015. Retrieved 27 August 2020.
    • Longer review on a website we have an article about. Arseneau, Adam (October 20, 2011). "DVD Verdict Review - Just Peck". DVD Verdict. Archived from the original on February 4, 2012. Retrieved 27 August 2020.
  • Comment This is a longer review, albeit from a website whose mission appears to be to catalogue every appearance of Chucks in a movie. P-K3 (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sourcing provided by GRuban are enough to keep the article. --Enos733 (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Citations/reviews found and mentioned above are enough to pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chanding my vote due to the Colorodo Springs and Oklahoma Gazette reviews fulfiling WP:NFO C1 and additional sources above fulfiling WP:GNG. Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as multiple reliable sources coverage including reviews have been identified in this discussion that show that the film passes WP:GNG and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Residents' Association of London[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. Article only has citations which prove the party existed, not that the party satisfies GNG or ORG guidelines. A place on the Register of Political Parties is not enough to prove achievement or importance, and usefulness is not a valid reason to retain. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed with the nominator's assessment. There is nowhere near the coverage required to meet NCORP for this minor political party, who primarily stood unelected candidates at the local level and received little coverage outside of the register. The article claims that the party split from Havering Residents Association, but I found no evidence of that in online sources. Unless those could be found, a merge / redirect to Havering Residents Association is not appropriate either. -- Dps04 (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: seems to be a minor political party that has had no real success, no apparent coverage to meet WP:GNG Eddie891 Talk Work 13:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kentfield, California. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Woodlands, California[edit]

Kent Woodlands, 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)

Not in Durham. Appears to be an HOA in the town of Kentfield. Nothing notable. Perhaps redirect to Kentfield? Glendoremus (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I must discount Emeraude's opinion because it consists only of personal attacks, which may result in a block if repeated. Sandstein 09:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Free England Party[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. Although there are citations, this article only proves the party existed, rather than give any evidence of notability or achievements prior to, or following, an election campaign. Citations prove the party stood for election, but that is expected of political parties so is not notable enough to satisfy GNG or ORG guidelines. Usefulness is not a valid reason to retain. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator is on a crusade to delete articles on minor political parties. They nominated this article before and the result was keep. The same is true of numerous other articles. It cannot be acceptable to keep coming back for several bites at a cherry. One must consider that the motive is something other than creating an exclusive encyclopaedia. Emeraude (talk) 08:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This vote is not policy lead. The editor has also been absent from discussions which deleted or removed articles such as Suffolk Together, PPPILA, Life and Liberty Party, Cymru Annibynnol, Common Sense Party (UK) and others, which the community agreed had no place in an encyclopedia. I suggest that the editor refresh their knowledge and understanding of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: discussions of whether other similar articles exist or not should generally be avoided in deletion discussions per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Seagull123 Φ 16:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Hey Seagull123. I think this is a case of "other stuff no longer exists" if you look at how many successful AfDs have been passed by the wider community. Also I have to direct you to an series of AfDs of which Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former throne of Baden is a good example, where there was over 20 successful nominations, all of which had to be seen in the wider context of there being a series or pattern. The editor I was responding to votes "Keep" for each and every nomination in which they take part, which has to be seen for what it is, too, I suggest. However I am concerned that there is a misunderstanding about political parties and their 'right' to an article on Wikipedia. The wider community has agreed with me numerous times that minor political parties do not have an automatic right to an article here and it is worth showing this when making an argument for a further deletion. Yes, you're right, the Other Stuff Exists policy is something to consider. But the success of previous AfDs on this very subject should be considered too. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Short-lived group with sources only being official results and their own website; receiving 367 votes or 1% in local elections does not win you an article here. Could have more content at English_independence#Organisations. Reywas92Talk 02:18, 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 keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies[edit]

Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Whizz40 (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This textbook is in its 6th edition. The nominator needs to explain how they've determined that it fails WP:NBOOK#4. pburka (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been a week and the nom hasn't replied, so keep. I presume a textbook from a major publisher that makes it to 6 editions has to be widely taught somewhere. Somebody's clearly buying them, and I doubt it's beach reading. pburka (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was able to access a college database and found sourcing via several reviews on the book. It also looks like it's been cited over 2000 times per Google Scholar. While GS isn't a RS in and of itself, the extensive amount of cites does give off the impression that there's more sourcing out there than what I've added. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:TBK per ReaderofthePack. - hako9 (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

African American Defense League[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This article was created in the aftermath of the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers because of the group's apparently violent anti-police ideology, which is reflected in the WP:RS. However, all of the coverage on this group seems to have dropped off completely after news coverage of the Dallas shooting died down. I cannot find any RS talking about this group that was published more recently, or before the Dallas shooting occurred, or something that is completely independent of the Dallas shooting. Therefore, I don't really believe this topic can stand on its own merit. Love of Corey (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability. The sources cited are generally not about African American Defense League and tend to only incidentally mention it. Therefore, they do not contribute to notability because they are not "significant coverage" within the meaning of GNG. To the extent that the article is about Mauricelm-Lei Millere, there are also BIO1E concerns. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear violation of not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 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 redirect to Tamalpais-Homestead Valley, California. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homestead Valley, Marin County, California[edit]

Homestead Valley, Marin County, 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)

No indication of notability. Not listed in Durham. Perhaps redirect to Tamalpais-Homestead Valley CDP would be more appropriate? Glendoremus (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect Seems obvious enough that there's already an article covering this topic, a duplicate is not necessary. I wonder has the census released a list of CDPs for the 2020 census yet, since they are deprecating hyphenated places? Reywas92Talk 01:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tamalpais-Homestead Valley, California: WP:GEOLAND: "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG." Does not meet WP:GNG   // Timothy :: talk  13:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 15:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Alan Shields Jr.[edit]

Robert Alan Shields Jr. (edit | 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 both WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. Inexpiable (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

While not a "good" article, its existence can be used to support a listing-by-name in a death penalty list article. - knoodelhed (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is already listed here, as part of 1 of 248 other people executed in that decade, hence why it fails notability: List of people executed in Texas, 2000–09. Inexpiable (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is time to end the use of biographical articles for clearly POV pushing intentions. That is the only way to explain this absurd over coverage of people on death row.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Ann Krukar[edit]

Jo Ann Krukar (edit | 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 lobbyist does not meet WP:GNG. KidAd talk 20:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable as a lobbyist, and her positions in government were below the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 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 redirect to Mill Valley, California. Redirecting as WP:ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harbor Point, California[edit]

Harbor Point, 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)

Appears to be a residential suburb of Mill Valley. Not covered by Durham. I am unable to find any in-depth coverage that might indicate notability. Glendoremus (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 subject has received a significant amount of individual pieces of coverage in various sources, but there appears to be good-faith disagreement (even discounting some dubious SPA participation) over exactly whether the relevant notability guidelines are satisfied by in-depth coverage among the many passing references. Initial concerns over broken link references have broadly been solved, but there is overall no solid consensus. ~ mazca talk 19:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Pianist[edit]

Video Game Pianist (edit | 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'm not actually 100% sure the article meets Wikipedia:Notability_(people). A decent number of the Ref links are broken and aren't high quality.

That said, it might still meet the threshold by virtue of some of those competitions, just not via the external links and references currently in article. Soni (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Soni (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Soni (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Soni (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Soni (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnotable per nom. Only two or three good reliable sources in regards to his concerts. Lots of other unsourced WP:BLP statements, especially in the "personal life" and "classical music" sections. Google check also reveals little other sources. –eggofreason(talk · contribs) 14:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ref links have been updated and are no longer broken. - Blueskies3000 1:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueskies3000 (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants involved old and new WP:SPA
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 19:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wondering why the title isn't "Martin Leung" any ideas??? MissiYasında&& (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Agreed. If Kept, it should be renamed to Martin Leung. Soni (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The general article is now in a worse state than when I nominated it, with a lot of BLP puffery being re-added without discussion. Some of the newspaper refs added might qualify for GNG, but they're mostly about a Secondary topic that also mention Leung. I'd request any closer to judge quality of the refs. Either way, the article needs severe nuking to meet WP's general standards, assuming it meets the Notability threshold. Soni (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was also found to win a few notable music awards and I added this information in the “Perfomances” section (at the end):

“Martin Leung has been a recipient of several music awards including first prize at the Cleveland Concerto Competition (2007), the Art of the Piano Liszt Competition in Cincinnati (2011), the USC Concerto Competition (2013), Zoltán Rozsnyai Memorial Prize at the LA International Liszt Competition, Division VII (2016).” It clearly makes him a notable musician. I added the new ones following this policy:
Shortcut

I agree with the deletion nominator that some of the citations are not very good and they should be fixed.

However, I don’t agree with this statement : “A decent number of the Ref links are broken and aren't high quality.” The broken/dead links themselves do not disqualify the Wikipedia page as most probably they were checked in the past and the page was qualified back then.

Here is the policy on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot

My opinion is that the page is old, so some links have been expired or used lower standards at the time (for example, I didn’t know an anonymous IP could create the Wikipedia pages) and the issue of the page is clean-up and maintenance – definitely not deletion based on suggested notability issue.

P/S: If voted to keep the page, I suggest to move it to “Martin Leung” and clean-up/re-write some of its part. If you type his name on Wikipedia, it re-directs to his page.--Iockyrice (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, 12 more eligible citations have been easily found related to the music festivals, concerts and notable media. It doesn't look like an issue to find more citations but the page definitely needs a good clean-up.--Iockyrice (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable person failing WP:GNG or more specific WP:NMUSICIAN with insufficient reliable independent in-depth sources. The article is a textbook WP:REFBOMB puffery with every possible mention of the person cited. But 80% of sources are just profiles and briefest of entries -- not significant coverage at all. Half the news are brief passing mentions in context of performances and do not focus on the person, including above [132]. Of the three more substantial sources, [133] is about a specific video and doesn't focus much on the person. [134] and [135] look okay, but that's only 2 GNG-compatible sources from local news, which should really be much more substantial. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possibly WP:TOOSOON. There is some minor coverage, announcements and whatnot but it doesn't reach WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:NMUSICIAN. Not enough to satisfy WP:BLPSOURCES. scope_creepTalk 18:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well after reading the sources and page carefully, I concluded that it passes WP:GNG easily and passes WP:NMUSICIAN while it is different, and not even the case of TOOSOON because of notability in the area of expertise/practice and had been up for years. It may be weak before but now its way much better with sources and everything. JK.Kite (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eliahu Sacharoff[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO by a wide, wide margin. A conviction for possessing more ammo than he was licensed for does not make him a notable member of the Haganah. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 19:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a weapons procurer does not seem to support notability, nor does the establishment of a plywood factory make him a notable "industrialist". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is established by numerous reliable sources albeit not in English as noted above. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Was going to !vote delete based on the state of the article, but the he.wiki version has lots of additional detail that suggests notability. Numerous Google Books hits too. Number 57 10:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is are several Gbook references, but they are identical in content, having 2 extra bullet that his licence allowed or 2 extra clips than his licence allowed, and constitute passing mentions. It is almost the same sentence in every entry. The [136] is unsourced. If the was additional reference in Hebrew or English for the Hebrew Wikipedia were available, they would already be present in the article, but they are not. It largely unsourced. The one reference is an autobiography, written by himself. scope_creepTalk 18:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yalchin Abdullayev[edit]

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

He clearly doesn't meet the criteria for WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NPOL. He is a district leader of a party which is unrepresented in the national assembly of Azerbaijan. Its important to note that 9 parties are represented in the National Assembly. His only claim to fame seems (which is not mentioned in the article per se) to be getting arrested along with other activists for a political demonstration which seems to be a very weak WP:1EVENT Roller26 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A well-known person in Azerbaijan. Proof of what they say. The name is mentioned in the 2019 report of the US State Department. Other International Organizations as well. Those links are provided ----

Rufikmm, that report mentions couple of hundred names. Just getting mentioned in that report does not make a person notable, for that he has to satisfy the above mentioned guidelines. Anyways I could find the person name in the report with spelling used in the article. Could you provide me with spelling used in the report. -- Roller26 (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roller26 https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/azerbaijan/?fbclid=IwAR04x91Pu_QaDN73OUFekSWFsYpm2r_PpwyoKsCYnAv8jsylZlCV8ZAKGX8

Rufikmm, I already had that link through the external links of the page. I was asking for the person's name spelling. As the spelling used, Yalchin Abdullayev doesn't appear on the report. I also recommend that you read WP:GNG and WP:BIO guideline pages and specially understand the meaning of Significant coverage, as just a mention in a State Department report doesn't mean Significant coverage and hence does not imply notability for a stand alone article. --Roller26 (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roller26 http://ipdthinktank.org/Pasha-Umudov--eng.html?fbclid=IwAR1FxLQ9xTXWUBsaXeU1NN_WJLqWYUERW3JLa6Sh3GSd23fIY0iMldR4xj0

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Thomas Story Library[edit]

My Thomas Story Library (edit | 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'm not finding any reviews in reliable independent book series. As a result, this series appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. All of the references I can find are attempting to sell me this product. Hog Farm Bacon 19:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.. I am disregarding the word "keep" written by Nolobank because it offers no rationale whatsoever, not even a bad one, and AfD is not a vote (and based on username is fairly evidently someone with a COI). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Loop (bank)[edit]

North Loop (bank) (edit | 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:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. No effective referencing. scope_creepTalk 18:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep by user:Nolobank. Sig added by scope_creepTalk 08:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Odontis[edit]

Odontis (edit | 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 anything happened with this, or that it had any followup media coverage. Seems like advertising and/or WP:NOTNEWS. Dennis Coventry (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Bagumba (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of high school basketball coaches in Pennsylvania by wins[edit]

List of high school basketball coaches in Pennsylvania by wins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails policies on list notability and trivia Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:NOTSTATS, sourced to a single unreliable site, about non-notable teams and individuals. Reywas92Talk 17:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject fails WP:LISTN. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTSTATS. Nika2020 (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.. Lacks sources. MissiYasında&& (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The List doesn’t meet GNG in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable statscruft. Ajf773 (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no reason to select any subset. Whoever created this article clearly had no inkling of how many high school basketball coaches Pennsylvania has, it is thousands per year, with many only coaching a few years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Middlesex County Cricket Club Twenty20 cricketers[edit]

List of Middlesex County Cricket Club Twenty20 cricketers (edit | 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:LISTPEOPLE Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A list of Middlesex County Cricket Club Twenty20 cricketers is in the public interest. All entries have been linked to existing Wikipedia entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:8496:D100:E983:4D93:D46E:4759 (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per ChrisTheDude; the nomination reason is erroneous. Harrias talk 09:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Strange nomination, meets the inclusion criteria for lists and is one of numerous lists of cricketers across all formats. StickyWicket (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Withdrawing my nomination. Article has been improved to the extent where notability is clear. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Premier Volleyball League. MBisanz talk 15:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shakey's V-League players[edit]

List of Shakey's V-League players (edit | 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:LISTPEOPLE Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mrschimpf obviously this would never affect my nomination... but it is a truly ugly and inaccessible way to display any data at all! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethicurean[edit]

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

WP:NEOLOGISM coined by a single restaurant in the UK ([137]), with a cookbook to match ([138]). Sources are dead and primary. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - a non-notable neologism designed to promote a restaurant; it's possible the restaurant is notable but there's no article on it at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, non-notable. Nika2020 (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not clear from the references what the business was (there's an extant restaurant in Bristol with a similar name, but the web address is theethicurean.com) but regardless, this is clearly a portmanteau brand-name masquerading as a neologism. I can't find any evidence that the word has ever been in common usage: even if it had, this would be a DICDEF. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be a ploy for hidden promotions as stated already. Nevertheless, the definition appears good for knowledge sake. MissiYasında&& (talk) 19:50, 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 delete. Tone 17:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas P. Clark[edit]

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

Lacks coverage in reliable, independent sources. Would meet WP:NCYCLING if the claims made in the article about the races he participated in are correct, but they're not verified (and see Talk:Nicholas P. Clark#Unverifiable claims). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we need to stop treating every pro sportsman as notable without actual indepth sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply put, I think this article is a hoax. There's no record of this guy on ProCyclingStats. Claims that he rode in the Tour of Flanders (1995) and Liège–Bastogne–Liège (1997) don't seem to be true per this and this. Anyone who has rode in those races, and those alone, would have plenty of basic stats on them on ProCyclingStats, and that's before you start to pick at the rest of the article. Also, there are zero incoming links to the article too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no citations to back up anything written here. This guy is a fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.193.214 (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support delete, however fellow IP user, if you have a conflict of interest with the person, please do not edit it. If you have proof that he is a white supremacist, cite it; the source must be reliable, independent and trustable. GeraldWL ✉ 04:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost certainly a hoax. Lugnuts has put their finger on it. The claimed participation doesn't even make sense; a support rider for the Spring one-day races also competed as a professional in the Grand Prix des Nations? Not very likely. That race is one that also has an amateur division and it is far more likely that they competed in that way, it at all. All references to a Spenco UCI team lead back to SPS or to sites owned by this person. The more I pick into the specifics the more I notice that the claims seem to be intended to be difficult or impossible to either verify or debunk fully. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are very few sources. WP:GNG is not met fully. MissiYasında&& (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article also exists on two other WP projects. I've dropped a note on the talkpage of the creater of the arz. WP suggesting that they could speedy delete it there, based on it being a hoax here. The es. WP article creator is blocked, so I'm not sure what to do with regards to the Spanish version (which looks very similar to the EN one). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This perhaps warrants a post on the Spanish Wikipedia's equivalent of WP:AN. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I requested that the Spanish article about Nicholas Clark be speedy deleted as a hoax, which it now has been. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Larry. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Lugnuts: Thanks for pointing to this issue, this article to be nominated a speedy deletion at arz.wikipedia. HitomiAkane (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:HOAX, did not achieve the things mentioned in article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've extensively looked his profile up to find any supporting references or sources, but I couldn't find any. Khwabeeda (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tideswell Community Players[edit]

Tideswell Community Players (edit | 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 amateur theatre company, WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable, secondary sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable community theatre group. No significant coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a non-notable theatre company. No coverage. EverybodyEdits (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: an am-dram group with no evidence of notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I got for delete here. Needs more coverage to meet notability standards.MissiYasında&& (talk) 19:58, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz talk 15:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Bakthiar[edit]

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

Promotional article about someone who doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. There's coverage, but it's mostly not in reliable, independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Samson University[edit]

William Samson University (edit | 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 education institution. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of any reliable, secondary sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of websites. We should have no articles sourced only to an organization's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 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 keep. Tone 17:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas V. Chema[edit]

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

Resume for a subject who appears to fail WP:NPROF, WP:BASIC, Bearian's standards for lawyers, and mine. Probably the best argument for notability is NPROF#6—[t]he person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. Is Hiram College a major academic institution? My gut says no, but it's possible. Sourcing for the claim that he is "recognized as an expert on energy and telecommunications economics and regulation, infrastructure planning, and developing public-private partnerships" is primary. Most-cited paper ([139]) gets 69 hits at Google Scholar. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I think saying every university and college president in the US is notable might be going too far, Hiram College is a promenent enough liberal arts institutions that I am willing to say being the head of it is enough to pass academic notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonno Turner[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable "social media influencer". Cordless Larry (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jdm64[edit]

Jdm64 (edit | 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 has notability tag since September 2019. AfD'ing to either remove the tag or delete the article. Personally I think it should be Kept, as the subject has played in several notable CS:GO teams (Liquid and Envy), participating in several Majors and other notable tournaments, with the following sources: [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149] ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 15:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 15:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a lot more CS:GO players that have Wikipedia articles. This subject certainly passes WP:SIGCOV with the sources above. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Comment - This is not how you file an AfD. An AfD should be filed by a user that believes the subject should be deleted for not meeting notability or other reasons, not by somebody that thinks it should be kept. With the lackluster sourcing used, there is no way this would meet notability. Just because other articles exist doesn't mean consensus supports keeping those, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 15:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faysal Traoré[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY --BlameRuiner (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The chocolate game[edit]

The chocolate game (edit | 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, no WP:RS, is mostly a guide and just... what? — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes#10. Untitled. MBisanz talk 15:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Obvious (Monty Python)[edit]

Ron Obvious (Monty Python) (edit | 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 WP:SIGCOV for this character to write an encyclopedic article, and this article cannot be rewritten pass WP:NOTABILITY. There are a few passing mentions of this character, but nothing to verify any meaningful out-of-universe information, according to WP:NFICTION / WP:WAF / WP:PLOT. Jontesta (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though there is no support for a merge besides the nom, it can still be proposed outside of AFD Eddie891 Talk Work 15:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moulty (song)[edit]

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

Not independently notable. At most, merge to The Barbarians (band) with a redirect. Qwirkle (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not only one of the most notable songs on Nuggets, one of the most notable garage rock songs of the '60s. The sheer perversity of the story--and the fact that it charted and features the Hawks--has resulted in five decades of reliable coverage. Arguably more notable than the actual band themselves. Caro7200 (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but that would only change what was the surviving article, and what was the redirect. Qwirkle (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is appropriate to retain both. Caro7200 (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, that is your belief, but could you explain why?

If we have two or three short articles which are interrelated and largely repetitive, and likely to stay that way, it is a disservice to the reader not to combine them. Qwirkle (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree, I think unnecessary merging and redirecting is the disservice. The song is notable enough for its own article. We'll see how other editors feel. Caro7200 (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May be more famous than the Barbarians themselves. In the 1980 Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll (Jim Miller, ed.), Lester Bangs finishes his entry "Protopunk: The Garage Bands" (pp 261–264) with two paragraphs about "Moulty" and concludes that it best captures the feeling of garage outfits from Ritchie Valens through the Ramones. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I kinda agree with some of your points, but the song seems notable enough to have its own page. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno. I think that’s how we got “Wikipedia: Two Million Articles in Six Million Places!” People accept the general idea, except for articles they have emotional connection to. Qwirkle (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, it can be often be subjective what counts as "notable" or not. I think this article falls fairly in the middle. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per reasons above, the song is indeed notable. It has received some coverage. Most of the sources in the article are reliable. I also found some more reliable sources which talk about the song: [151], [152], [153], [154] and [155]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSINGLE. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-played video games by peak concurrent users[edit]

List of most-played video games by peak concurrent users (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are major gaps in information that make this list completely unreliable and unverifiable. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games by monthly active player count and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games by daily active users which were unanimously deleted. A "peak" is perhaps a little more discriminate and consistent. But without reliable information, this is all just a self-promoting effort by the few games that report this information in a self-serving way. Jontesta (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a topic that passes both WP:LISTN and WP:SALAT, and unlike the other lists this one can actually be maintained since it does not have to be constantly updated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this a topic that has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources per WP:LISTN, or are we merely compiling information from various WP:Non-independent sources? TompaDompa (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, sure, we’ve got this: [156] in The Verge, [157] and this [158] in Twinfinite, this: [159] in Kitguru from just a two-minute search, not to mention the massive amount of reporting that just focuses on the concurrent players count of individual games. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I missed the discussion of the other lists mentioned in the nom, but we're getting into actual measurements here used by the mobile games industry (not traditional games) to determine engagement since straight download numbers are not fairly indicative of ongoing player engagement. Unfortunately, monthly player count does seem to be the measure that is used more frequently but that point wasn't at all discussed at the poorly-attended AFD (and again, I didn't see that in time). I don't think peak concurrent user content is comment though compared to that. --Masem (t) 14:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOT, broadly speaking, -- this is a narrow intersection of arbitrary criteria. This is one of those "fun to have" listicles, but it's not encyclopedic. I rarely say WP:IAR, but it's really not Wikipedia's place to gather this kind of stat tables. A brief mention of top games in some article is sufficient. Plus, I agree with previous noms' sentiment of this being inherently unverifiable and the sources only estimate and speculate when not given primary data by devs/publishers themselves. As per nom -- the only reason publishers share this info is when they want to stand out. You could hardly find this data for smaller games. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a arbitrary list perhaps with a non-standard selection criteria, it fails WP:NOT. It not really encyclopedic. If it was expanded out with much more depth, it could be notable in the future. scope_creepTalk 17:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reason to have this split off from the list of most-played video games by player count. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:V, which is a damn rare rationale at AfD, but I can't possibly see how this can be sourced by any means other than through information provided by the companies themselves, which have every reason to inflate their numbers. (Heck, a MUD I played up until recently, which consistently makes the TMC Top Twenty List, is deliberately engineered to make it desirable to have multiple characters logged in at once, 24-7, to make their usage numbers look better. Hey, look, we have 147 players at once!) With inherently unreliable sourcing, this is an unreliable list. Ravenswing 03:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 15:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rigatta[edit]

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

It exists, but it doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Doesn't appear to have a Latvian WP article and has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years. Can't see an ATD. Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of association football players by nickname[edit]

List of association football players by nickname (edit | 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 needed; trivial and possibly WP:OR Nehme1499 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: another, important, point is that these lists (such as List of sportspeople by nickname) will never be extensive. It's not the same as, say, a list of players who have scored 50+ goals in the Premier League. If we were to assume that only 1% of players on Wikipedia have nicknames, we are still dealing with thousands on people. It would be impossible to have a full comprehensive list. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, agree very trivial. Govvy (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Trivia, quite likely OR, possibly incomplete and would probably prove dificult to maintain accurately and with verification. Eagleash (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Looks like WP:OR and all around useless article to have around. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, suitable for a fan forum, not an encyclopaedia. GiantSnowman 15:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm inclined to delete, but it's not OR (it's well referenced), WP:NOTUSEFUL isn't a valid rationale, and reliable sources have treated this topic as a group (e.g. The Football Pocket Bible, The Oxford Dictionary of Nicknames) per WP:LISTN. Perhaps it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE. pburka (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination is not policy-based. It's mostly WP:NOTNEEDED and WP:ITSCRUFT which are arguments to avoid. The reference to WP:OR is a WP:VAGUEWAVE without any specifics or evidence. The page in question, on the other hand, has 248 citations and the sources demonstrate that the topic passes WP:LISTN. And it is easy to find more quality sources which support the topic, such as Onomastics in Contemporary Public Space and The Linguistics of Football which demonstrate that the topic is not just notable in popular works but is also the subject of academic study. So, the page is high quality while the nomination is not. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article mostly consists of a bunch of useless WP:OR. The references cited are just a bunch of generic handwaves, no evidence that this is a topic that passes WP:LISTN. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew. Additional comment: the nominator and creator (and almost sole contributor, to a page that clearly took a bit of time to put together) appear to be the same person? Maybe I've missed something? Crowsus (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good point. Why would someone create such a well-sourced page and then nominate it for deletion. It doesn't make any sense. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah sorry, I completely forgot that I had created the article ahahah. 13:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Delete as pointless trivia. Also, if the article creator nominated this for AfD, then surely it's G7 eligible? Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom's rationale. Does not appear to meet WP:LISTN. And Joseph2302 also appears to be correct, on the surface this could simply have been G7'd. However, since it appears that the content was split from another article, an AfD might be more appropriate. Onel5969 TT me 13:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) (Pburka has basically said the same above just before I added this) Comment: what makes this article different from the one it was split from, List of sportspeople by nickname? Since the issue is the merit of the topic rather than the quality of the content, surely the same decision should apply to both? And in that vein, there may be more interested editors who would contribute to a deletion discussion on that Sportspeople article? Crowsus (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would delete List of sportspeople by nickname, for the same reasoning. Also, these lists will never be extensive. It's not like, say, a list of players who have scored 30+ goals for X team. There are possibly hundreds of thousands footballers on Wikipedia. If even only 1% of those have some sort of a nickname, we would have a list of thousands players. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a good point, for example it seems to be a bit Italy-centric having just glanced over it, so many more that theoretically could be added. We might have to put in a minimum requirement, "must have been capped at full international level to get a nickname shout". Or "nickname has not been used in a fully professional league". Crowsus (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Absolutely. It is solid consensus that only fully-pro international players are allowed nicknames. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP There are references for all of the information provided. The news media does comment on this information, and I'm sure if its not obvious, they explain how they got that nickname. Dream Focus 17:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivia and OR that certainly doesn't belong here Spiderone 20:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Beattie (CEO)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Trevor Beattie (CEO) (edit | 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:BASIC. I would have redirected, but the target is unclear. Coverage I could find ([160], [161]) consists of namedrops in The Argus, a local paper. Previous AfD closed as no consensus four years ago because nobody !voted—would be nice to get at least something this time, one way or another, because it's been sitting in CAT:NN since then … If this is kept, it should be moved to something else because "CEO" is rather misleading IMO—he's not a business executive. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless substantive independent reliable non-churnalism sources turn up to allow him to pass WP:GNG. The sources currently in the article are inadequate. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability here, just LinkedIn trivia. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 17:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Korgi (book)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is redirect to Top Shelf Productions. Boleyn (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 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 speedy keep. withdrawn (non-admin closure) Vexations (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar Zaka[edit]

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

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&type=revision&diff=974338287&oldid=974240310&diffmode=source, "All the information posted about waqar zaka is either wrong or fake details". So we're finding ourselves in the situation is that the subject claims that all the cited sources are wrong, but the subject himself is not a reliable source. After reviewing the sources, I am convinced that they are all celebrity gossip, and using them is a violation of WP:BLP. We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. It is not up to Zaka to prove that they are wrong, it is up to us to prove that they are right. Vexations (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, I don't know if Shaheryar Shabbir's claims are correct or not. I don't know if they represent Zaka or not. Anyone can come here and claim to represent someone. We do know that the article has been contested in its entirety and it is up to us to make sure it complies with WP:BLP. Here's a simple example, for a very straightforward claim: "born 1 January 1978" is cited to https://www.teatmik.ee/en/personprivate/351288-Waqar-Zaka that looks like a terrible source to me, and other sources say differently. It is very likely wrong. So, if we can't even get that right; can we trust the rest of the article? Vexations (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations: Which other source says differently? Both cited sources state he was born 1 January 1978. Both are websites which shares data on individual corporate entities and this seems reliable to me. --Saqib (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, it's a thing, apparently: https://www.muzent.com/google-wikipedia-displaying-wrong-information-waqar-zaka/ Vexations (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations: This is a PR stuff. Subject is known for Age fabrication. --Saqib (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to send his official documents I can, I'm not a kid with 0 info you can confirm my identity directly by Mr Waqar Zaka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheryar Shabbir (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaheryar Shabbir: I'm not interested to see private official documents. --Saqib (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know what kind of a guy you're, I'm Waqar Zaka's official social media team co-ordinator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheryar Shabbir (talk • contribs) 16:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shaheryar Shabbir: Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. May we also conclude that you are being paid to edit on behalf of Zaka? —C.Fred (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shaheryar Shabbir: What do you mean by what kind of guy am I? And since you've declared your connection with subject, your votes on this nomination page should be considered null and void. --Saqib (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All the details on this page is wrong, I can prove it using the correct sources, I have his official document such as his passport and other stuff which is authenticated and verified — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheryar Shabbir (talk • contribs) 20:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shaheryar Shabbir: A scan of a passport should not be used as a source. We need independent sources such as newspaper or magazine articles about him. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep preferably Speedy. I can see why the article subject and Shaheryar Shabbir acting on their behalf would want to suppress the article, but RS like this and this and this are definitely significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. We are not Zaka's PR firm and he does not get to demand what the article about him says. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the page if you cannot post relevant and authentic details — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheryar Shabbir (talk • contribs) 04:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shaheryar Shabbir: Are you conceding that there are not enough reliable sources about Zaka and that he is not a notable person? —C.Fred (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: He's imply'g that delete the BLP if we can't write it in their terms. --Saqib (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. @Shaheryar Shabbir: the preference of you and your employer has been noted. They have no basis in policy and therefore no bearing on this discussion. You have been making the same demands in multiple places and received the same response. Making them again does not strengthen your position but weakens it. Read WP:BLUDGEON. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing

Let's clarify something. The editor claiming to represent Zaka does not want the article deleted, they want the content changed, but they have not proposed a new text. I don't think that they want the article deleted, at least they haven't explicitly said so. It is clear that my proposal for deletion as a solution that leaves all parties equally dissatisfied (aka a compromise), has failed. I'll withdraw this AfD and close it as keep. I suggest that instead editors who are unhappy with the current text point out exactly claims are incorrect and which sources are unreliable. Category:Inline citation and verifiability dispute templates has all kinds of suitable templates. Vexations (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just an example How the hell in a world can someone tell his date of birth? His common detail is wrong which is his date of birth, There is no such document bigger than a passport which verifies his date of birth, are you guys okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheryar Shabbir (talk • contribs) 18:14, 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 redirect to List of online digital musical document libraries. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MuseData[edit]

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

This has been in CAT:NN for eleven and a half years. Hopefully we can now resolve it and reduce some of the crazy backlog on such an important topic.

This exists. It has some basic mentions, but I couldn't find anything to establish it goes over the bar of WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of online digital musical document libraries, where the database has an entry. This topic is both a digital music format and a database, and the database is arguably the more relevant thing these days, as the ASCII-based repository is particularly suitable as a corpus for machine learning research. There is secondary sourcing that verifies the topic's importance, but there are not enough in-depth sources to satisfy GNG. Boleyn, you could have discovered this alternative to deletion yourself with a two-minute WP:BEFORE search. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:24, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-fiction environmental writers[edit]

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

List of all non-fiction environmental writers from across the world - except the USA. Really weird. I don't see a need for this list, and these writers write on very different topics, 'environmental' is a very umbrella term here and semi-indiscriminate. Possible ATD is merge with List of American non-fiction environmental writers.

This has been in CAT:NN for 8 years. Previous AfD at previous title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-American non-fiction environmental writers. Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN. @Boleyn: You really need to stop creating these meritless list AFDs without any consideration of their navigational function; cleaning out a drive-by maintenance tagging category is no excuse. There's clearly a corresponding category for this list at Category:Non-fiction environmental writers. That category only has two nationality-specific subcategories, Category:American non-fiction environmental writers and Category:Indian non-fiction environmental writers. Separate sublists as well as separate subcategories are dependent on the number of entries, which is why Americans are listed separately. How that leads to deleting the list of everyone else in the world is a mystery. postdlf (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having a list for all nations in the world except the USA is bizarre to say the least. Having a category is great, and doesn't mean there is or isn't the need for a list - I don't see here that there is. Where is the notability of the topic? Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • ”I don’t see the need for a list”. This has been answered ad nauseum over and over in many of your AFDs, do you read the discussions in response to your nominations if you’re not pinged? Please just stop with these, they are a waste of everyone’s time. postdlf (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as above. Sometimes people from one country are so numerous they dominate a list so get spun out and linked to. The boldtext wording of "non-American" is awkward, but can just be edited. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It needs some clean up, but it's a notable topic. I don't understand why nom keeps highlighting the age of articles: it's completely irrelevant. Please stick to policy and guideline based rationales. pburka (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The list is worth keeping per WP:LISTPURP. It offers valuable and easy access to the writers listed. more should be added in due course.MissiYasında&& (talk) 19:57, 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. WP:HEY Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thet Thet Wai[edit]

Thet Thet Wai (edit | 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 body builder. No effective referencing. Passing mentions. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NSPORT scope_creepTalk 08:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-03 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 12:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable award won. 72.80.58.47 (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC) CU Blocked[reply]
  • Delete: Per Nom and IP. The first source (and one I checked) does not provide any significant coverage on the subject. Listing a name, with such minimal biographical information creates a pseudo biography, and does no service to the reader or Wikipedia. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Nika2020 (talk) 01:46, 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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Vice[edit]

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

Contested prod times two (my fault as I forgot about the first prod). Reason given on the talk page irrelevant (wikilinks). Not a notable wrestler and only one source in the article. Fails WP:ATHLETE - "World" title claim is controversial as that title is not recognised as such. Recommend deletion. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Recognised by who? The world title claim isn't controversial, since pro wrestling hasn't a goverment body. The promotion itself is the one who recognized a title as world title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is because the title hasn't been defended outside of two countries ever, and hasn't been defended outside of Japan for nearly a decade. The promotion itself calling it a world title is not an independent source. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it doesnt matter.  These are just kayfabe reasons to claim the title is a world title. There is no goverment body to recogniced a world title--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, pro wrestling is scripted. There is no goverment body who recognized which titles are world titles. If the promotion promotes a title as a world title, it's a world title. The "defended around the world" it's a kayfabe reason to gain the word "world". The article says he won the World Heavyweight Championship, which it's true since Zero1 has a title called World Heavyweight Championship.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Provide an independent source that recognises the claim. Otherwise it is controversial. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not controversial . The name of the title is World Heavy-weight and× there is no goverment body. You can see any report and see the name of the title is World Heavyweight championship
for more learning, here is an explanation from 411 https://411mania.com/wrestling/ask-411-wrestling-can-zack-ryder-be-a-main-eventer/ There are no fixed, objective criteria regarding what is and what isn’t a world heavyweight title. Every individual promotion gets to determine whether their title is called a world title or not, and there is not an independent group of wrestling journalists or historians who have gotten together to determine whether the promotions’ designations are legitimate. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is just so much wrong with your claims. So anyone can call a title a world title and it's an automatic pass on WP:ATHLETE? That goes against the concept of independent sourcing that is a key plank of bios of living people. Not to mention a blatant case of promotion. Your link admits; "Generally, it does seem that fans who are concerned about this sort of thing are more willing to accept a title as a “world title” if it is recognized in more than one country and is defended outside of its home country on a somewhat consistent basis. In part due to this Ring of Honor was very careful not to call its main title a world championship until it was actually defended outside of the United States". So I call on you again to provide an independent reliable source that shows that the Zero-1 title is a world title. Zero-1 saying so themselves is not enough. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
recognized by who? Answer me, who recognized a title as world title? A magazine with no power over promotions? Websites with no power over promotion? Wrestlers fall into ENTERTAINER more than ATHLETE (the Notability guide about sports says "for pro wrestling, see entertainer"), since every promotion has his own World Title a not a goverment body to control them. Some magazines, like PWI recognized titles as World titles but has zero power over the promotions. Again, Vice won a title called World Heavyweight Championshio and that's what the article says. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who recognised a title as a world title? Reliable independent sources, like PWI. That is what is required in a BLP. The athlete line is more about the Lethwei side by the way - I'm simply adding a head off on the wrestling side. The claim remains controversial and I have nothing further to say about it. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PWI it's a magazine and has no power over promotions, just recognized for him. It's not a goverment body or a comitee. Pro Wrestling Zero 1 promotes a title names World Heavyweight Championship and every independent source calls it World Heavyweight Championship. Not controversial at all, since pro wrestling is scripted and not a real sport. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources about the title: a former Zero1 World Champion Nagata loses Zero 1 World Championship will defend Zero 1 World Championship winning the Zero 1 World Championship Zero1 World Champion Masato Tanaka Chris Vice exposed the Zero 1 World Heavyweight championship Again, wrestling is scripted. If a promotion calls the title world title, every source will call it world title. PWI it's the exception and has no power over the promotion.
  • Comment - As a professional wrestler, WP:ATHLETE is teh wrong standard and is explicitly stated so within. WP:ENTERTAINER is the SNG that applies. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He is a Lethwei fighter. That's why WP:ATHLETE actually applies here. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no, it doesn't. You are talking about him as pro wrestler and a Pro Wrestling World title, so doesn't fit into athlete. You said "no notable pro wrestler", so we are talking about WP:ENTERTAINER. Pro wrestling = entertainer. Lethwei = athlete. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 12:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended nomination: Contested prod times two (my fault as I forgot about the first prod). Reason given on the talk page irrelevant (wikilinks). Fails WP:ATHLETE as a Lethwei fighter. Not a notable wrestler and only one source in the article. Notability is not inherited from the Zero-1 title. Recommend deletion.
(Amendment recommended in talk page conversation and made due to misunderstanding of original nomination and provision of sources eliminating claimed controversy) Addicted4517 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pro wrestling titles mean nothing for WP notability, so WP:ENT is what applies. Personally, I don't think he meets that SNG. More importantly, there's nothing that makes a case for him meeting WP:GNG. Two pro lethwei fights don't show notability any more than two pro boxing fights do. There's no evidence that he meets the notability criteria for martial artists (WP:MANOTE). If he'd fought for the World Lethwei Championship or the Golden Belt that would be different. Papaursa (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Leaving aside nonsensical jabber about whether pro wrestling "world titles" are controversial or not (WTH?), or whether or not he meets WP:ATHLETE (which guideline hasn't existed for several years now) we're left with the basics. Does the subject meet WP:NMMA? No; that guideline sets a pretty high bar that someone with two bouts in an obscure martial art doesn't meet. Does he meet WP:ENTERTAINER? Not in being a sometime-wrestler for two minor promotions, not even close. Does he meet the GNG? No. There you have it. Ravenswing 04:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- the article can't even decide if he was born in 1985 or in 1991, which doesn't say much for the sourcing and quality. In other regards I agree with Ravenswing. Reyk YO! 15:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz talk 15:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luke de Pulford[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for people in politics. His role (member of an advocacy committee) is not one that guarantees a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- it is a role where the notability test requires him to be the subject of sufficient press coverage to clear WP:GNG. But the three footnotes here comprise two glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other people and one piece where he's the bylined author of an op-ed, which means that none of the footnotes are about him for the purposes of establishing his notability. As always, we're looking for sources which analyze the significance of his work in the third person, not just any source that happens to have his name in it. Bearcat (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Meschkuleit[edit]

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

Procedural nom, as my prod was just contested by an IP with the explanation that Toopy and Binoo is notable—but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. There is some coverage (e.g., [169]), but it's local (NB: CBC News has many local affiliates and publishes news from on all of them on one site.) I don't think the subject of this article meets WP:NCREATIVE or WP:BASIC, but would appreciate a consensus at any rate because this has been tagged for notability for 8 years. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @Toughpigs. Looks like this is yet another sign I should really apply for Newspapers.com access on WP library …… AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it's super helpful. You'll like it. :) — Toughpigs (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. David Gerard (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Baraan IV[edit]


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

While this mainspace article is tagged for speedy deletion I've taken the opportunity to nominate it for deletion instead, together with the draft about him which I've been reviewing at Draft:Francis Baraan IV, bearing in mind that notability isn't grounds for deletion in draft space. Having reviewed the sources he doesn't meet the WP:GNG criteria. He is a blogger who is trying to make a name for himself. The author is persistent. Can we consider the mainspace and draftspace articles as a whole and conclude that the topic is not notable? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have been watching the development of this draft with interest and despite reading all the sources cannot see where notability is supposed to lie. He appears to have inherited family wealth and is happy to advertise it. But being a manager of a posh beach-house doesn't make you notable, nor does parading round with a number of attractive women although that looks to be in particularly poor taste but again not notable. For the rest he appears to be a blogger who likes to pick poorly argued fights with the current left-wing prime minister but without demonstrating that anybody takes it very seriously. Being a blogger and being on twitter and being retweeted does not make for notability. Nothing else here speaks to notability. If it isn't speedy deletion worth, it must be pretty close.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Contesting Deletion
Mr. Baraan is not just a blogger. He is a also a journalist and has a column on The Philippine Business and News called Brutally Frank.
MediaManager1 (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)— MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Baraan has been interviewed multiple times by former DZRH correspondent Edmar Estabillo, a radio anchor for Mabuhay Radio Japan-Worldwide, which live streams on Facebook and aired across the globe. There are hours of recorded interviews with him talking about Philippine politics, press freedom, and free speech. He has contributed to the dialogue of Philippine politics and is considered one of the most prominent Opposition critics in the Philippines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)— MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Contextually,they should. One does not interview someone multiple times if the interviewee isn't some kind of an authority. And if you listen to the interviews, they clearly are equivalent to in-depth profile of someone, especially if the interviewer is a peer—also a journalist. The fact that Baraan is asked for his opinions by his peers, is, essentially, a testament to his authority on certain topics. One of the criteria of Wikipedia notability is an impactful contribution to a certain field. In the Philippines, there are a handful of political pundits and influencers, who are anti-Duterte that get to be asked for speakerships, interviews, and written about. There are already multiple, independent news sources that have talked about Baraan in great detail. They may not be The New York Times, but they do have editorial oversight, and are independent and unrelated to Baraan. Just because a reference isn't indexed on Google News, doesn't mean it isn't verifiable, credible, and independent.
As for bloggers talking about Baraan, you have to realize that those bloggers are also newsmakers and independent journalists. They add context to Baraan's perceived authority. I could inline citations that would support all the material in the Article. Would that suffice?
Also, the article is a stub. It is not in any way, shape, or form pretending to be a full-fledged biographical, encyclopedic account of Baraan.
Would the article pass as a part of a list, say Filipino human rights activists? Would it pass as a stub for a journalist in Wikipedia Tagalog? I believe it would.
Like I said, I believe in the wisdom behind the pedantry and the rules. But contextually, and sources-wise, the article could pass as a biographical stub, and expansion of it would be most welcome.
I leave it to you, Editors, to decide on the fate of the Article. But it would be imprudent to delete an article which shows promise, and has somehow satisfied the notability criteria of Wikipedia.
Arbitrarily nominating for deletion, or deleting altogether an article, is the prerogative of Editors. But I have seen Articles where there sources I used were accepted and unquestioned.
MediaManager1 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)— MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I have made it abundantly clear that I am a paid contributor, not some sockpuppet. Read my explanation on my talk page regarding this accusation on Draft:Francis Baraan IV. I have disclosed everything there is to disclose. And I do not know why you are bringing up an account I have nothing to do with. The talk pages for the draft of this topic address your concerns, and I have nothing to do with Henyo.
MediaManager1 (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)— MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Interviews are primary sources and as such do not establish notability, as Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject says about themselves, but in what others unconnected with them say about them. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, my third-party and secondary sources all support each other to demonstrate notability of my topic as an activist. And I would like to remind everyone that this is a biographical stub, not a full-blown encyclopedic account of Baraan's life. I have at least 3 independent, third-party sources with editorial oversight, and the others are secondary sources to show the perceived importance and notability of Baraan among the pro-Duterte crowd, because he is a prominent Opposition activist. Also, notability can also be established via cult following. Baraan has over 130K followers across social platforms, and the fact that he is verified on most of them denotes public interest, because he is a public figure. The in-depth profiles about him speak to his notability, too. Also, more materials and sources are forthcoming. MediaManager1 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)— MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete: Per Nom. We are dealing with WP:PAID, that is a policy with legal considerations, it is also a Wikimedia mandate. What I see is an apparent WP:SPA that was involved with a draft, then forgot the account password (it could happen), created a new account to continue work on a draft, "redrafted", then redrafted again, and this apparently resulted in an article in main space, no longer a draft, yet still under consideration there. conflict of interest, specifically financial conflict of interest states: If you receive or expect to receive compensation (money, goods or services) for your contributions to Wikipedia, the policy on the English Wikipedia is: you must put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;. Assuming volumes of good faith this would mandate, at the very least, that this article be deleted by procedure, and return to the draft for consideration of creation. However, I agree with the Nom because it has been demonstrated the author has a concrete reason to argue for keeping, that in itself cast doubts on possible neutrality, the draft and article advance advertising/promotion, that was a reason for deletion two years ago, and because the world at large (reliable sources) is the determining factor for inclusion on Wikipedia and not financial considerations. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Paid editor bypassed the WP:AFC system and created in mainspace. Theroadislong (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don't see why Wikipedia would want people to disclose if users are paid contributors, and then use it against them. It boggles the mind. Whether or not someone is paid to contribute, what should matter is the content created and the notability of the topic. Does this mean I would always get questioned whenever I wish to create an article about a topic from which I would not financially benefit? Who would create the article I just wrote and move it into mainspace? Do I have to ask someone to create it for me? Are there any volunteers? How does one gp about this problem of technicality?
As to reliable sources argument, I have demonstrated notability of the subject via reliable sources. My sources and material demonstrate notability not because I advocate for its retention in mainspace, but because it is a fact proven by the references I used.
Also, I would like to contest the {{unreliable sources}} tag on my Conan Daily references. Conan Daily is a digital news site with editorial oversight. Conan Altatis is THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF. He has a team of writers and editors, which is included in the ABOUT section.
HERE:
The Team
Editor-in-Chief: Conan Altatis
Associate Editors: Erika Diaz Mendoza Lao, Jillianina Estevez
Sports Editor: Conan Altatis
Entertainment Editor: Carlo Camilo Valenzona
Business and Technology Editor: Marky O’Brien
Lifestyle and Society Editor: Erica Diaz Mendoza Lao
Staff Writers: Jiro Honda, Orion Estevez, Rafi Gandolfi
MediaManager1 (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)— MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
REGARDING BYPASSED AUTHORITY
I didn't know that it was frowned upon, or a violation, for paid contributors to bypass directly into mainspace. I honestly thought that since I am already autoconfirmed and could move a draft into Article space, I could write articles and be proofread and edited by autopatrollers here. Had I known that, I wouldn't have done it. Deleting my article is a bit much. I ask for leniency since I am a rookie. And zi I am not using other accounts or soliciting others to advocate for the retention of my Article. Which is why I am here arguing my case and objecting as best I could. If I were familiar with all the guidelines I could cite by memory with the correct tags, I would.
MediaManager1 (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)— MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'm afraid I am at a disadvantage since you all can correctly cite the correct guidelines using the appropriate tag; I can't. So, it would help if you could please give a neophyte user like me a little break. A little leniency would be most appreciated. I did not mean to bypass anybody's authority, and I certainly did not know that disclosing my status as a paid contributor would be used against me and my credibility and neutrality. I have exercised the utmost prudence with regard to the way I wrote the Article, cognizant of the fact that impartiality and neutrality are the tone with which all encyclopedic materials should be written.
So, I implore you to take into account that I am new here, and is still navigating my way around all the rules & pedantry. Thank you.
MediaManager1 (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)— MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment sometimes, and I suspect that this is one of them, there is a time to back-off, as continuing to argue may create an adverse reaction. For what appears to be an autobiography, IMHO that point passed some two comments ago.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from an article about him. Most likely a WP:ROTM. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no concerns that the creating editor is paid. They have made the declaration. My concerns are that the draft has always appeared to be a thinly disguised advert and that the article is WP:ADMASQ as well. The photos decorating each are imperfectly sourced and permissioned on Commons. That is not entirely relevant and yet shows a disregard for the proprieties of this endeavour. Fiddle Faddle 20:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As promised, more references and sources are forthcoming. According to WP:GNG, as long as there is at least one reference supporting claim of notability and significance, article should not be deleted. And just because you couldn't Google anything about Francis Baraan IV, doesn't mean he isn't notable. Try iterations of his name, Frank Baraan or Frank Baraan IV. Also, more sources are forthcoming.
MediaManager1 (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep (struck as duplicate vote!)

As for the argument that Baraan is not notable:
"Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article:
WP:NEXIST
WP:NPOSSIBLE
The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search."
Also, I have already used independent, verifiable sources that talk about my topic in great detail. One doesn't even need to extra research, because some of the references I used are in-depth profiles on Baraan.
MediaManager1 (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep

I would like to keep the article, and ask Curb Safe Charmer to withdraw her deletion nomination. I have made many improvements to the Article already. Her reason of my topic not meeting notability guidelines have already been debunked with reliable sources. And like I said, more sources are forthcoming. And my article is a stub for a journalist and activist. I have already presented multiple verifiable, independent, quality sources.

MediaManager1 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.
  • Delete this paid-for piece of promotion. Sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, you havent read or checked the sources. And being a paid contributor has no relevance to the notability of my article, or the verifiability of my sources.

MediaManager1 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think my topic is too broad. I am thinking of nominating my own article for disambiguation. Possibly, Francis Baraan IV (Filipino Activist-Journalist)? Thoughts? MediaManager1 (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We only disambiguate biographical articles if there are two or more article subjects with the same name. Who is the other Francis Baraan IV? - MrOllie (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


REASONS TO KEEP ARTICLE

The problem with these tags and templates is that new editors and users get overwhelmed by a new pnew popping being placed by admins. I am not even sure how that template would affect my Article given that it has been nominated for deletion under WP:GNG. And despite the good faith edits and the improvements I have been making to it, I have yet to see one vote of confidence from admins, who are far more experienced and prolific here. It is now the 6th day since my Article was nominated for deletion. And I would like to know the best solution to my Article without it being deleted. I have satisfied notability guidelines via WP:GNG as a journalist-activist/opinion maker for a stub: 1. Cult following 2. Public figure 3. In-depth, high quality sources, primary, secondary, and third-party 4. All my sources are used by already established, old articles here: Conandaily.com; kami.com.ph; abogado.com.ph; Author Link to thehilbiznews.com etc. 5. My subject's in-depth profiles at Squeeze.ph are reliable, verifiable, quality references. 6. Baraan has multiple published body of work at a reliable online news publication as a columnist and pundit, which means he is an expert at his field (another notability guideline for a journalist/creative professional/author/opinion maker) 7. My subject is widely quoted by his peers and publications and bloggers (which, contextually, signified authority in his niche: politics and activism and social media activism) 8. The Squeeze PH articles alone are enough to create an entire article about Baraan's body of work as an activist, journalist, and social media personality. 9. I have provided every material with an inline citation/good reference. 10. And my article could either be a stub for a journalist-activist, or an encyclopedic article on Francis Baraan IV (Journalist & Activist). 11. I have also provided links to his interviews by reputable journalists, videos created by other journalists and bloggers. 12. More sources are forthcoming. Hence, {{Afd} tag citing WP:GNG is now inappropriate.

MediaManager1 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECTING TO THE HEAVY FIRST PARAGRAPH EDITS MADE BY THE NOMINATOR OF MY ARTICLE FOR DELETION.

I would like to request that the following be included in the first paragraph:

Francis Baraan...

is a Filipino activist, journalist, blogger, social media personality, and hotelier (or beachfront resort manager and owner).

Reference: http://squeeze.ph/8-fun-things-about-francis-baraan-iv/ No. 8 describes Baraan as a hotelier, not a house guest manager. In his own news blog, Baraan also says he is the General Manager of Sirom Beach Hous. So, where did "house guest manager" come from? That is tantamount to editorializing, instead of directly quoting what has been explicitly written in the sources.

I may be a paid editor, but I created the article, and I would like to set an accurate, succinct tone based on the sources used.

DESCRIBING BARAAN IN WORDS THAT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SOURCE USED IS AN EGREGIOUS, BAD FAITH EDIT. MediaManager1 (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaManager1 (talk • contribs)

.Wikipedia is supposed to be based on facts and from sources, not based on something entirely and visibly inaccurate and misleading.

I AM NOT REVERTING to my edits. I AM IMPROVING THE ARTICLE THE WAY IT SHOULD BE EDITED, because I created the Article.

Paid editors still have the right to IMPROVE their article, which was nomimated for deletion discussion due to lack of WP:GNG. How am I to prove notability, when the materials and descriptions that ACTUALLY make my topic notable, are being summarily edited with inaccuracies, grammatical errors, and misleading descriptions by THE VERY person, who nominated my article for deletion review?

Anyone is welcome to edit as long as the edits are not diametrically opposed to the improvements I am making for the Article. If the nominator is that INVOLVED, the nominator should withdraw nomination or close the deletion review discussion, and KEEP my article as a stub.

It is frustrating to work hard on something only to be accused of engaging in edit wars with Administrators, who have the POWER TO BLOCK ME from editing my own article, or deleting my Article altogether.

I don't have the upper hand here. You, administrators, have. And all I am asking is for is fairness. Please try to see things from my perspective.

Thank you. MediaManager1 (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is NOT MY BLOG. I am now confusing MY ARTICLE with Baraan's blog as MY BLOG, too, because of my frustration over the edits to my first paragraph. But I am learning the hard way that NO ARTICLE ON WIKIPEDIA is MINE — it is EVERYBODY'S.

MediaManager1 (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Blatantly promotional, blatantly non-notable. If recreated it needs to be speedied and SALTED. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep Article is improving. Subject is a social media personality and a columnist, therefore, he is a public figure and key thoought leader whose political opinions are widely quoted, sought, and shared and consumed by the public. I recommend keeping it as a stub, or edit article until it satisfies each administrator's idiosyncratic interpretation of notable.

120.29.66.62 (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC) :Note:This user has made few other edits on Wikipedia. Struck sock vote Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that 120.29.66.62 removed the AfD banner on the article (replaced by another editor), obviously in error considering that this might close the discussion Fiddle Faddle 10:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The so-called improvements according to 120.29.66.62 are just cosmetic improvements — for one wording fixes in the lead but not providing additional secondary sources: sources that are independent of the subject. Barely heard him on either ABS-CBN or GMA. It seems that warning tag is right: the editors seem to be connected to him. Additionally, the file used — File:Filipino activist Francis Baraan IV car selfie.jpg, is to be deleted sooner as it seems an obvious copyright violation: copyright vests in the person who pressed the shutter, not the person who owns or maintains the photo. Ownership and copyright are two different things. Multiple issues mean this article doesn't warrant its standing in the mainspace. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from notability issues, majority of the listed sources are unreliable. I can see only one reliable source. Since Francis Baraan IV is a living person, it must conform with the standards set at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It seems that this article promotes him, a notable violation on the said policy. Using blog-type sites as sources (exempli gratia: squeeze.ph, www.abogado.com.ph, www.getrealpundit.com) are also against the policy, as well as using self-published source that is connected to the subject - the The Philippine Business and News: https://thephilbiznews.com. 11:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep the article as stub. Editors have used reliable, third party sources. Philippine Star, Squeeze.PH, Conandaily.com, and kami.com.ph all have editorial oversight. PhilStar may be the biggest, but all are reliable, verifiable, and independent. They have an actual team of editors and journalists, not a blog by just one person. You all should help editors improve the article, not go around in circles with these endless deletion discussions. Because if we are to actually dissect WP:GNG guidelines for a stub, the Article and references have already established that. And how do you know that Baraan has not been quoted and featured on CNN Philippines, Rappler, GMA, ABS-CBN and Inquirer. He actually has. His tweets and opinions have been widely quoted by all of those news sites. In fact, the biggest journalists and news sites all follow him because he is an authority in Philippine politics and his opinions on politics are regarded as expert opinions.

The main editor probably did not think include those articles, because they were trivial mentions. But I checked, there are lots of local and international news publications quoting Baraan. You just don't know where to look. Administrators keep using the notability issue. But those "cosmetic" improvements support proof of notability. And those news sites all have detailed, in-depth profiles about him. WP:GNG was the notability issue used. And as a stub for a journalist and opinion maker, Wikipedia is very clear: If there is at least one reliable, verifiable, indepnendent source that talks about the topic in great detail and when reliable sources obviously forthcoming, keeping the article as a stub is the best solution. Also, Squeeze.ph and kami.com.ph have respected and notable columnists. Squeeze.ph has Neri Colmenares as one of theirn columnists, and they have a team of actual journalists and news team. They are reliable, third-party, independent news portals, and those are facts. It would behoove you to actually use more common sense. Pushing this narrative wherein almost all the references used are poor references is just plain irresponsible. A little due diligene would actually help.

Also, Samira Gutoc is another notable columnist for the Philippine Business and News,the news portal wherein Baraan maintains a column, too. So, obviously, Baraan meets notability guidelines as journalist, activist, and opinion maker, because his peers actually recognize him and are on equal footing as his notable counterparts, who have Articles here.

At this juncture, denying Baraan's notability to justify a deletion tag that was created before all the "cosmetic" improvements, is just bordering on absurd. Wikipedia has Articles with less sources than Baraan's article, and so many pages actually use almost all the references and sources used for this Article WITHOUT any reference templates and deletion tags at all.

So, I don't know why people keep on denying the obvious. This Article and most references support and prove notability of topic as stub for a living journalist, activist, and creative professional.

Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that in order for a source to be reliable, at least 2 paragraphs in any individual source/reference should talk about the topic lengthily such that no additional research is already required. So, please read all the references. Some even have more than 5 paragraphs about Baraan, and talk about and review his life, activism, work, businesses, advocacies, and opinions in encyclopedic detail.

Also, he has been invited by Sen.Risa Hontiveros to be a roundtable panelist last year on LGBT issues, and he even worked with Sen. Risa before on an LGBT advocacy bback in 2012. Even Sen. Leila de LLima wrote him a handwritten lletter praising Baraan's work.

If you read the sources, you would actually know that. Senators don't invite and praise non-notable people, they only do that for political influencers and key activists and thought leaders.

So, once again, just to drive home the point:

1.REFERENCES MEET WIKIPEDIA CRITERIA. 2. TOPIC MEETS MINIMUM NOTABILITY GUIDELINES. 3. JUST BECAUSE YOU CANNOT FIND MORE SOURCES DOES NOT MEAN THEY DO NOT EXIST. 4.JUST BECAUSE SOURCES ARE NOT AS HUGE AS OTHER SOURCES, DOES NOT MEAN TTHEY ARE NOT AS GOOD AND RELIABLE. 5. COMMON SENSE. 6. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. 7. AS PER MEDIAMANAGER1, THIS IS JUST A STUB. 8. AND ARTICLE MEETS STUB WP:GNG FFOR JOURNALIST, ACTIVIST, OR OPINION MAKER.

Thank you. I say STRONG KEEP, and hoping an administrator would actually see some merits in my arguments in support of keeping the article. Have a wonderful day or night. Cheerio. SignedSealedForevered (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC) — SignedSealedForevered (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. striking sock vote Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NTTV[edit]

NTTV (edit | 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 college tv network. Does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:BCAST. Won a regional Emmy, but that is NOT automatic notability. Rusf10 (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Raymie (t • c) 08:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep produces a lot of original content that has won awards which is one of the criteria for articles about television statuons,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already addressed this, but I guess it must be repeated, regional emmys are not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cable television channel that meets WP:BCAST, by being a regional cable television channel, and has won multiple regional Emmys. The Emmys alone might not be noteworthy, nor simply being a regional cable television channel, but combined together seems noteworthy. Smeggysmeg (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Combining two non-notable facts does not create notability. Not only doesn't it meet BCAST it doesn't even meet WP:GNG, there's no signifcant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the article is sourced to the tv station's website.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Behera[edit]

Sachin Behera (edit | 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:NSPORT, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. This young man qualified for a speed record in a highly obscure sport a year ago, but only managed to get local news coverage of it per WP:BLP1E, and has done nothing notable since. I don't think it's eligible for speedy deletion, as he did get an entry in Guinness World Records. However, in recent years GWR has become amusingly exhaustive in what it will include, and I can't find any other mention of knee-striking online. The edit history also suggests a conflict of interest. If an article ever does get written about knee-striking, then he would certainly merit a mention using the few reliable sources cited here, but there's not yet sufficient notability for a separate biography. Captain Calm (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability Spiderone 22:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 12:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WCC 3[edit]

WCC 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NGAME in a cursory search for coverage. Every reference, save for the review, is a press release. AFC declined for this same reason, but little changed before the creator manually copied it out of draftspace. —{CrypticCanadian} 09:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —{CrypticCanadian} 09:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to List of most-followed TikTok accounts. Was deleted after the AFD nom as a A7, has been recreated as a redirect and full protected already. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riyaz Aly[edit]

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

Non-Notable subject, Fails WP:GNG and also no any valid reference is provided.Sturdyankit (chat) 08:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain redirect - plausible search term Spiderone 22:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 12:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese researchers of Daoism[edit]

List of Japanese researchers of Daoism (edit | 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 topic, and most don't have articles. No refs and no clarity on who can be included. Possible ATD is merge/redirect to Daoism in Japan article, but I don't think it is notable enough for even a sub-section. Was in CAT:NN and CAT:UNREF for 6 years. Boleyn (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article has no sources and list doesn't seen notable. lullabying (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This reads like a pointless encylopedia entry with no references. Whiteguru (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. list doesn't seen notable. Nika2020 (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 12:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Ferrer (actor)[edit]

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

Unremarkable personality. No discussion in reliable independent published sources, only source shown here is not independent. Also: WP:NOTINHERITED. A loose necktie (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He's a working actor and good for him, but there's nothing about his career that is exceptionally notable. Definitely a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Not enough sources. EverybodyEdits (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable minor actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 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 keep. Cleanup and potentially moving can be discussed outside of AFD Eddie891 Talk Work 12:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional clergy and religious figures[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fictional clergy and religious figures (edit | 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 LISTN, largely unsourced and without RS discussing the topic as a whole list. There are so many millions of characters in books, TV, plays, and movies who hold so many types of jobs and do so many things. It is not the encyclopedia's job to attempt to catalogue such non-notable charactors – many here are very minor characters with no significance and no relation or comparison to others. Reywas92Talk 07:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 07:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 07:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Saints, Clergy and Other Religious Figures on Film and Television,
  2. Jane Austen and the Clergy
  3. The Established Clergy as Depicted in English Prose Fiction
  4. Religion and the Clergy in Boccaccio's Decameron
  5. Shriven Selves; Religious Problems in Recent American Fiction
  6. The Priest in Fiction: A Comparative Study
  7. Godly and Righteous, Peevish and Perverse: Clergy and Religious in Literature
  8. Breaking the Fall: Religious Readings of Contemporary Fiction
  9. Preachers and Misfits, Prophets and Thieves: The Minister in Southern Fiction
  10. Mysterium and Mystery: The Clerical Crime Novel
And notice that these are all books and I could easily have kept listing such sources. It really doesn't get any more notable than this. So, as this topic has been nominated before and was kept, this seems to be a clear case of WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." See also Proverbs 26:11.
Andrew🐉(talk) 11:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will you piss off about always complaining about disruption? A second nom THIRTEEN years later is certainly "a reasonable amount of time to pass", NOT disruptive, and perfectly allowed. Reywas92Talk 17:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The blue linked ones are notable, and the list serves a purpose by aiding in navigation. Not sure about the rest on the list. Dream Focus 11:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While this list references instances of fictional portrayals of religious figures in various media - some famed and recognisable, others not - this list does not provide notability nor does it satisfy any purpose. Whiteguru (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep A list of notable fictional religious figures such as the ones Andrew mentions above would make for a useful, encyclopedic list; the list as it stands now does not. If this list is kept I would say it needs a major restructuring to include only the characters where there exists some sort of scholarly analysis of their roles in the story, how they represent their religion, etc. That list could help readers understand the role of religion in fiction, rather than just attempt to list every single fictional religious figure ever, which is useless and indiscriminate. Rhino131 (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Cleanup - As stated above, there actually are plenty of sources that discuss the concept of fictional religious figures, and there are some notable examples, so a list would actually be a useful navigational tool on the topic. That said, this current list needs to be massively culled and cleaned up, and relegated to the actual notable examples that either link to their own articles, or have sources to demonstrate they have some notability. Additionally, even a lot of the blue links here need to be examined and removed, as I'm seeing a lot that do not actually fit the criteria of the list (Homer Simpson being a missionary in one episode does not make him clergy, Caiaphas and Annas are historical figures that happened to have been portrayed in fiction, etc.). Rorshacma (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed the 90% of the list that were passing appearances and otherwise non-notable characters, limiting it to characters with their own articles. This obviously has no relation to the search results above, which could be the basis for a Clergy in fiction prose article, but of course does not discuss the indiscriminate list "as a group or set". The short list of completely unrelated notable fictional religious figures is still neither encyclopedic, a useful navigational tool, nor containing worthy sourced analysis. Reywas92Talk 18:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTN. The topic is discussed as a group or set in any number of reliable sources. pburka (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTN The list helps readers navigate. Wm335td (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A subject like this is better covered in an actual article, not a list. Move to Clergy and religious figures in fiction and remove all the cruft.★Trekker (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can be WP:REFUNDed for use elsewhere. Sandstein 19:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N-rule (Icelandic language)[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic in conception. The perspective is that of someone who already speaks Icelandic and needs to figure out how to spell it using "n rules". These rules are not notable as such and not standardized in presentation between different teaching materials as this text implies ("Rule one" and so forth). Also completely unreferenced but that is not the fundamental issue - I think I know what book this is based on and you could meticulously cite chapter and verse but this still wouldn't work as an article. Haukur (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 15:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thermopotash[edit]

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

Page is an orphan, lacking notability, reads like product placement. Balle010 (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sourcing is skimpy, and the article is a stub that does indeed read like product placement.TH1980 (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 15:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ApexTV[edit]

ApexTV (edit | 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 coverage from a reliable publication is several The Daily Dot pieces in similar formats, all from the same author. WP:BEFORE check revealed nothing else reliable (tabloids, sensationalism, etc.) Fails WP:GNG, WP:NWEB. –eggofreason(talk · contribs) 19:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason(talk · contribs) 19:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Barely found anything about the channel aside from the articles about its videos. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems to have gotten little more than a burst of coverage briefly after a time travel hoax, not enough to demonstrate lasting significance, or even a pass of WP:GNG. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 12:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia SoftWorks[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable enough. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the current sources come directly from the company's website. IWI (chat) 15:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant coverage. Press releases and trivial mentions don't show notability SL93 (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 15:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Sopher[edit]

Rick Sopher (edit | 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 declined this PROD because I think it's arguable, but I think the subject of this article fails WP:BASIC. He's occasionally quoted in the Financial Times, but I can't find coverage of him. He's a rich businessman: that's it. The article claimed he was awarded the Légion d'honneur, which would presumably get him past WP:ANYBIO, until I looked it up and could not find any coverage in RS indicating that this was true. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatever of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. None of the references is either a substantial coverage, and only one is an independent source. That one merely quotes a couple of sentences from him. The article doesn't indicate anything about him that might make him notable beyond the fact that he's a rich businessman, as AleatoryPonderings has said. JBW (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the article creator (is currently blocked) and has left a comment about their opinions on the deletion discussion on their talk page, here. Seagull123 Φ 18:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loving Hut[edit]

Loving Hut (edit | 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 appear notable as an entity/organization. Article uses primary sources (lovinghut.com) and reviews of individual restaurants using the same name. Lead paragraph uses phrases "restaurant group", "independent", "followers", "Supreme Master". The lovinghut.com/about page writes "Each Loving Hut is individually owned, with the autonomy to choose its own menu." It doesn't appear to be a corporation with branches, nor a franchise relationship and there is nothing on lovinghut.com to indicate it holds any business relationship with individual restaurants. It sounds more like a cult. I'm not sure what it is, but it doesn't appear that the "Supreme Master's" organization is notable. Normal Op (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The statement reviews of individual restaurants using the same name does not stand up to scrutiny. Broadcast of a founder's daily news and positive news is not a signature activity of a cult; cults take away your personal freedom and your ability to make your own decisions. It is clear, pursuing this article and reviews, that (franchise)(connected) loving huts are free to set their own menu yet use an international logo to identify them.    Whiteguru (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even the more cursory search returns plenty of sources. Washington Post, Vice, News.com.au, Phoenix New Times, New York Post (meh), Yahoo, lots of local coverage like Dayton Daily News, Gwinnett Daily Post, Naples Daily News... and I'm only through the first few pages of Google hits. It's a franchise apparently based more on central ideas/beliefs/brands than on menu items, but it's a franchise nonetheless (they aren't separate restaurants that happen to have the same name). It's an obvious keep. And yeah, it needs to be rewritten especially considering about half of the sources I just linked talk about it being a "cult". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "half of the sources I just linked talk about it being a cult", and you seem surprised. Like I wrote on the article's talk page, you cannot separate the subject of Loving Hut from Ching Hai, therefore any content is more appropriately placed in the Ching Hai article with a redirect from "Loving Hut" to Ching Hai. More quotes from your new collection: "All Loving Hut owners are members of Hai's Association", and "the affection the owners have for Ching Hai", and "Local Loving Hut owner Vincent Nguyen met Ching Hai in 1989 and has been a student of her teachings ever since," and "Loving Hut operates more like a homeowners association than a traditional franchise. There is no standard operating manual and no franchise fee, though the logo and the color scheme is the same in each location." Perhaps you've eaten at a local Loving Hut vegan restaurant and like the food; I have spent quite a bit of time reading about Ching Hai, her teachings, her other businesses, and other's viewpoints about it all. Those articles are representative. Normal Op (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • and you seem surprised - no, just observing that it's not in the article. you cannot separate the subject of Loving Hut from Ching Hai. I'll give it a go: one is a chain of restaurants and the other is a person. :P Plenty of sources are about the restaurants. It's possible a merge makes sense, but it's not clear to me at this point. If you think it should be merged, maybe withdraw this and start a merge discussion? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cult or not, it has been sufficiently covered by third party sources, as Rhododendrites has shown. ~★ nmaia d 04:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I understand the nominator's point about the two being closely connected, in the way that a founder can be inseparable from the business or organization that they founded, but as Rhododendrites says, one is a business and the other is a person. If you believe that this article does not fully express the connection between them, and there are reliable sources that cover that connection, then you can edit this article to make that clear. It doesn't need to be deleted. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ching Hai. I've yet to see any discussion on the lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Keep !voters above refer to "plenty of sources", "lots of local coverage" and "reliable sources", but none have looked at the sources with WP:NCORP in mind. This Washington Post reference is largely based on information provided by a "Local Loving Hut" owner Vincent Nguyen with no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND. The listing in the Australian Veg Food Guide provides no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This reference from Naples Daily News discusses how one Loving Hut closed down and was replaced by a new vegan restaurant. Article contains no information about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The Lonely Planet listing is a mere mention, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, this from Gwinnett Daily Post is a listing of one individual restaurant and has nothing about the actual company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I am unable to locate a single reference with Independent Content that discusses the company in detail, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 19:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Thank you, HighKing, for your detailed comparison/evaluation of these citations to policy/guidelines which I had been unable to express. Normal Op (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. A merge wouldn't be a terrible result, but it does seem to cross the line. There are a good few hits on Google Scholar (lots, though, not in English) that could be useful for expansion. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 15:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manthan systems[edit]

Manthan 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)

Unable to find anything beyond routine press releases and funding news. Fails NCORP and GNG. M4DU7 (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that searches mostly find routine transactional announcements, most recently their takeover of Richrelevance and then sale of a market research arm to another firm [171]. However, the 2017 Forbes India piece (now added as a reference) appears editorially independent and couold contribute towards WP:NCORP, although not enough in itelf? AllyD (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Did a few searches, notability clearly exists. If there are quality issues, leave targeted feedback for remediation. Ktin (talk) 22:01, 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 03:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's not that bad, but I have no idea where to start fixing the many issues. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should be moved to Manthan Systems if kept/no consensus/etc. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 15:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Ninian Sloane[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. No effective referencing. scope_creepTalk 08:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. References exist on Google News and Dom Ninian Sloan on Google. Pluscarden Abbey has written resources on this artist's works, and the Churches that contain the stained glass works created by him exist as ipso facto effective references. Whiteguru (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are passing mentions. Nothing in-depth, secondary that are intellectually independent. scope_creepTalk 09:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The obit is a mention as well. scope_creepTalk 09:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence presented in the form of secondary, independent and in-depth to verify the article subject. scope_creepTalk 11:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. To note, the article is subtantially written by the main author of the articles for the similarly non-notable relatives, linked in the article, whose articles were recently deleted, failing a PROD. Friend, relative or perhaps one of the subjects themselves? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful delete, per nom. I've come across his name several times in architectural guides as having designed windows for church buildings in Scotland, and I get the impression that he's a fairly well-known figure in that area, but I have not been able to find any sources that give him more than a passing mention. I will note here that if this page gets deleted but anyone is afterwards able to dig up decent sources, let me know and I'd be happy to take a look. GirthSummit (blether) 13:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The mentions in the architectural guides aren't sufficient? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mutt Lunker, they're literally passing mentions. Along the lines of "East window, Madonna and Child by Dom Ninian Sloane", that kind of thing, no biographical detail. If I always tell spam merchants that fifty passing mentions don't add up to substantial coverage, I guess I have to apply the same rules to someone whose work I'm actually interested in... GirthSummit (blether) 17:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Willem Jan Pieter van der Does. MBisanz talk 15:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zeilen door de grote storm[edit]

Zeilen door de grote storm (edit | 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 painting. It is indeed in a museum collection, but Little seems to have been written about it. Coverage of the artist is also sparse. Appears to be part of a walled garden of articles about the artist's work. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see also the other AfDs for paintings by the same artist.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dearest kind User:ThatMontrealIP Again, Thank you for your interest! I don't really know much about the insights of the Wikipedia, but from I have received, some other editors are fine with this page, I am hoping that you could read my explanation in the other pages that you already put in AfD, I have explained everything why it should be there as an open source, please be so kind to read it... Thank you very much, I appreciate it! -- Hendricolucky (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One of our most fundamental principles is that all material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be WP:verifiable. That's not the case here, because the article has no citations. I would have no objection to moving the article to Draft space if there is a reasonable chance that reliable sources exist, but I'll not that I haven't been able to find any. Van der Does is represented is several museum collections, and there is likely enough material to sustain an article about him. I am not convinced that there are sufficient sources for individual works, especially those that are not in public collections. It is better to merge articles on individual works to a section in the artist's biography, but only if they can be sourced. Vexations (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - into the article on the artist Willem Jan Pieter van der Does, as it does seem like he is notable (tho his article needs work). Netherzone (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. The painting does not appear to be the subject of a body of writing. Ewulp (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect all but Moscas En La Casa. There is consensus to redirect Si Te Vas and Poem to a Horse, and to not delete or redirect Moscas En La Casa, though no user explicitly argued to keep it. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Si Te Vas (Shakira song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song: was made into a redirect by User:Anthony Appleyard, but the article was recreated.

I am also nominating the following related pages, also recently recreated by User:Shakiraeldorado:

Moscas en la Casa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Poem to a Horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Slashme (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect them all. Until they are sourced. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 16:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the Billboard charts for "Moscas en la Casa" are correct, although it's debatable whether two chart positions make this article notable without any verified prose. The other two certainly don't appear notable in any way – the charts for "Poem to a Horse" are either fake or can't be verified. Richard3120 (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all but one: Moscas En La Casa was not recreated by that user, they just did some minor edits on that article recently. I added a couple more sources to the article and can keep adding more to it. The others can be redirect to the parent albums since they didn't chart, weren't covered, and didn't receive any accolades but Moscas En La Casa should not be deleted or redirected. FanDePopLatino (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Amberian Dawn. MBisanz talk 15:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness of Eternity[edit]

Darkness of Eternity (edit | 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 Music-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rock and Roll Christmas. MBisanz talk 15:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Rock and Roll Christmas[edit]

A Rock and Roll Christmas (edit | 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 and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (G5), WMF banned user. MER-C 08:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Krara[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. I only see one role in a work that we currently consider notable (Kalabsh (Egyptian TV series)). Also fails GNG, I only managed to find routine coverage, gossip coverage, and interviews, basically your standard non-notable entertainment industry coverage. BEFORE search didn't come up with anything else, though I note that I got a lot more hits for "Amir Karara" which appears to be the same person (not sure whether the title of the article is a typo or an alternate transliteration). GeneralNotability (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi yes he is same person Amir Krara is Amir karara this is my fault do you know this actor made a Tv-Series that more than 90 million Egyptians watched it this show is about real story in egyptian arm and he mad alot of tv-series and alot of movies are u sure when you search about amir karara doesn't show any thing okay search in arabic because he is an arabic actor (امير كرارة) end of the talk from me he is a star here in Egypt.--Adamshahin (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cewbot do you know who is Amir Krara in Egypt? ask any egyptian or any Arabic person and he'll tell you, Stop being racist, I am an Arab and a Christian, and you should know that there are celebrities that you do not know anything about.--Adamshahin (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources are not sufficiently in-depth to meet requirements to establish notability. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Does not meet WP:GNG. Adamshahin Please do not accuse other editors of being racist. That is a poor argument with which to attempt to refute the lack of coverage for this subject. Perhaps, due to your familiarity with the source language, you would kindly provide sourcing that does meet the requirements for any subject of any article on Wikipedia. As you have not done so, and as OP has thoroughly searched, I see no other conclusion than to delete. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that I had reviewed the sources added by the creator before !voting. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, good grief! He called a bot a racist. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Deepfriedokra don't remove my edits first and say oh my god :).--Adamshahin (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--User:Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)::: i didn't delete sources i put sources, i put english sources mean if he's an arabic actor so sure more newspaper was in arabic language if you can't read these sources so give me one big editor from arab and if he said the page will be deleted i'll be silent[reply]

@Adamshahin: Sorry, I was trying to fix the removal and breking of formating. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why always because you have power can do what you want to do to anyone where are the responsible for you.--Adamshahin (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you removed sources. In this edit, you removed the page notes and refactored my comments. I tried, with limited success, to fix that. Thanks --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 15:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neles[edit]

Neles (edit | 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 good example of WP:TOOSOON and WP:MAYBENEVER. The company started operation on July 1, 2020. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed nothing beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N.   // Timothy :: talk  21:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  21:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  21:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It's new just because it's been split from two major companies Metso and Outotec. Many articles exist in the Finnish newspaper of record Helsingin Sanomat [172] and the financial newspaper Kauppalehti[173]. Currently, Finnish newspapers cover a Swedish hostile takeover attempt of the company[174] and subsequent massive buys from Valmet. --Pudeo (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Neles is one of the largest companies in Finland. Company was officially formed in July 1, 2020, but it was before Metso. Neles has many reliable sources in Finnish [175] (Helsingin Sanomat) [176] (Yle) and many else. I just used English sources so people can understand them. Company is also in OMX Helsinki 25 (article isn't updated). So Neles has significant coverage in reliable sources in Finnish. –AinScept (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added reliable sources to article, like Kauppalehti, Yle and Reuters. –AinScept (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment @TimothyBlue: I have improved a lot this article when you put the deletion discussion, like adding reliable Finnish sources to article. What you think now about or should there be even more sources in the article? Sources what i added are very significant in Finland. -AinScept (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Tastet[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable model. SL93 (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit (blether) 13:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomsen Diagrams[edit]

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

Seems to be a WP:NEOLOGISM. "Thomsen diagram" gets 2 hits on Google Scholar; "Thomsen diagrams" gets 1. Bringing this to AfD because I also can't make head or tail of the dense, technical prose—perhaps there's something in here I haven't grasped. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:NNN. The concept does not appear to be used outside of a small handful of academic papers. - MrX 🖋 12:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:NNN. A search of the Web of Science found only one paper mentioning this concept. Apparently, it is not widely used in material sceince research. Paul H. (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premama[edit]

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

An apparent WP:CORPDEPTH fail. There are hits in legit sources [177], [178], but they are namedrops. Existing refs are largely either dead or not independent. Article has all the hallmarks of UPE. Tagged for notability for 8 years. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robo-FTP Server[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Robo-FTP Server (edit | 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 deleted as "Non-notable software by non-notable software company." which still appears to be the case. No independent references in the article and none found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria cited appear to be applied inconsistently and unfairly. Most of the FTP Server products listed in the comparison of FTP Servers (all linking to pages for each product) seem to have been on Wikipedia for a long time with no challenge and seem to similarly lack the references/citations you are demanding. Many have no references at all or only references to their own home page. User:eks ssi —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GirthSummit (blether) 12:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Email[edit]

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

Notability issues. Unsourced since 2007, the only coverage found was a CNET page with a publisher-supplied review. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit (blether) 12:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey H. Friedman[edit]

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

The article has been written in a promotional way as per WP:PROMO and therefore breaches WP:NPOV. Abishe (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With the caveat I might just be missing something. There doesn't seem to be a ton of coverage on him. There's a couple details that may make him notable, but as of now I'm leaning towards deleting it. EverybodyEdits (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete local coverage of a 70th birthday party is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 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 merge to List of Thomas & Friends characters. MBisanz talk 15:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thomas & Friends non-rail vehicles[edit]

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

One of several weirdly split lists of minor characters from the series. I can find no evidence that the topic of non-rail vehicles in Thomas & Friends has ever been discussed as set in reliable sources, so it seems it fails WP:LISTN. Very little is referenced so there is almost nothing to merge and a redirect (to where?) is pointless due to the title being unlikely as a search term. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Has not be discussed as a set in reliable sources, it fails WP:LISTN.   // Timothy :: talk  01:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and I agree that this is not a plausible search term so it should be deleted outright; nothing worth merging or keeping Spiderone 07:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, deleteper mom, fails LISTN. Nothing really to merge, not a plausible search term. A list of major characters would be notable, but this absurd specificity is not. Hog Farm Bacon 14:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Didn't we just merge content from Terence the Tractor into this one? Presumably the content that was merged from there is still worth saving, or it wouldn't have been worth saving the first time. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    YorkshireLad, while it is appreciated you merged this, I personally don't see much encyclopedic value in this content. I am however not opposed to merging that somewhere else, probably one final list of characters from this franchise. Feel free to suggest the target this could be merged to. I guess we could combine everything at List of Thomas & Friends characters into one list? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Piotrus, Sorry if my post sounded defensive, it wasn't meant to be.  :-) I was just a bit confused. But yeah, I think what's going on here is that the list at List of Thomas & Friends characters has had stuff split out, and by deleting this list, that list effectively becomes incomplete. But this list would seem to fail WP:LISTN. So I'd suggest merging everything into one list, and I'd be happy to carry out the merge . It certainly doesn't make sense to have separate lists of Thomas & Friends and The Railway Series characters, any more than it would make sense to maintain separate lists of Harry Potter characters for the books and the films (which AFAIK we don't). YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am totally fine with all the lists being merged, and if you need time, we can simply move them to your userpace while you work on combining them, instead of deletion. Redirecting (soft deletion preserving history) would be best, since redirects are cheap and it is good to preserve history. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge at least the names of the characters to List of Thomas & Friends characters, per my comment above. Having separate lists by class is silly, and certainly fails WP:LISTN. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Yorkshire's reasoning here. Light merge to YL's proposed target the names and maybe a few short lines of prose if any of it is verifiable. This fails LISTN, but there's no reason to lose all of the content, when a main character list would surely be notable. Hog Farm Bacon 15:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hog Farm, Actually, does it make more sense to merge to List of characters in The Railway Series? If there's going to be one list for both the books and the TV show, it should probably go under the original title, with a redirect from the other. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    YorkshireLad - Yeah, I see no need to have separate lists for the books and the TV show, since a lot of the characters are the same. I think all of these character lists should be merged together, maybe trimmed some. Not all need to be mentioned in the final product. For instance, most of the entries at List of Thomas & Friends film characters don't look significant whatsoever. The Railway Series article is probably the best final target. Hog Farm Bacon 14:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hog Farm, Indeed. For instance, I feel like Prince Charles probably isn't really a Thomas & Friends character, any more than he's a Coronation Street character (and, indeed, he's not on the corresponding list). YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could also consider renaming the final list a List of Thomas & Friends and The Railway Series characters. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the names into the parent article. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. GirthSummit (blether) 12:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 4 News (United States)[edit]

Channel 4 News (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unsourced compendium of US news programs named "Channel 4" at one point or another. Not titled as a list, but that's what it basically is. Seems to fail WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If this is an actual topic as opposed to original research that television stations that broadcast on Channel 4 often call their newscasts "Channel 4 News" and share certain other similarities, then it needs to be sourced to prove that. This article has zero sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unlike more famous "Channel 4 News" programs elsewhere...in the US it's just a generic title used by some stations on channel 4. No need for this at all. Raymie (t • c) 00:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be original research at best. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Title is a very generic news org name. Nate • (chatter) 00:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's a hint in this article that NBC somehow lined up its affiliates on Channel 4 across the country, then helped to standardize their local news branding. That would be meaningful and encyclopedic. Unfortunately this page pretty much disproves that theory. --Lockley (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "Total Wreck Of A Pilot Boat". New York Daily Herald. New York, New York. 1875-02-04. Retrieved 2020-08-27.
  2. ^ "Record of American and Foreign Shipping 1876". Mystic Seaport Museum. New York. 1876. Retrieved 2020-08-27.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_August_22&oldid=976564364"