Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 August	26 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 20:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geek Maggot Bingo

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

Non notable film with nothing to support it found in a WP:BEFORE search. Tagged for notability for 4 years. DEPRODed in July due to "notable director and lots of press coverage." Director may be notable, but film isn't inherently notable WP:NOTINHERITED. And as for "lots of press coverage", I found nothing but videos, blogs, and film directory entries. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete/Redirect~~ to Nick Zedd. Not seeing enough to satisfy WP:NFILM — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Struck based on RotP's research below. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like there was a special screening held at the MoMA in 2018, so it may pass NFILM under criteria 2. I'll do more digging. At the very least the MoMA source mentioned a review from back in the day, which I've added to the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I spent the last 2-4 hours scouring databases and whatnot, but I found enough to establish notability. It looks like there's more coverage, but a lot of it is squirreled away in places that the Internet can't really reach at this point in time (ie, the outlets haven't put it online). I found mentions of Variety and East Village Eye reviews, plus it was covered in a Kim Newman critique. I found some reviews via a college database so it'd pass under that criteria, plus it looks to have been screened as part of a MoMA film series years after its initial release, which would qualify it under criteria 2 since they fairly selective. I'm honestly a little surprised that I found as much as I did. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per reviews and other content added. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to ReaderofthePack's excellent additions. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been substantially improved with the addition of sources such as MOMA, Variety, Toronto Star and others so that it now passes WP:GNG and deletion is no longer necessary imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:47, 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 Draftify. Unanimous agreement that this doesn't belong in mainspace. Less clear which of the various alternatives is best, but draftify seems popular. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment inquiry against Mike DeWine

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

A pretty obvious case of violating WP:NOTNEWS. Something that just happened yesterday and for now simply looks like a political stunt that is unlikely to lead anywhere. Seems doubtful that this stuff will even get a formal committee vote. If three months from now there is still some coverage of this topic, an article might be appropriate then. There is already a one-sentence mention of this impeachment attempt in the Mike DeWine article, which is more than sufficient under the current circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft, as there is nothing here that rises to the level of an article at this point. BD2412 T 23:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Space Move. {Pointing out that a merge/move talk was in progress BEFORE this was suggested for deletion. I would discuss there} It was suggested earlier to be moved into a draft/user space. I can move it into a draft space and edit it/improve it. If something does happen, I can easily move it to a real article again OR add the information to Mike DeWine. I would vote on that instead of a 1 sentence merge right now. (Doubtful), but for all we know, he could be impeached and I would hate to have deleted the article and have to retype it. A draft is just as easy to delete OR make into an article depending on what happens. Anyone agree? Elijahandskip (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Concerned citizens can read OH news or OH government sites, especially for an event that happened yesterday. Caro7200 (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again we are talking about the move/merge. That discussion was going on BEFORE the deletion was started. Please discuss there. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until this becomes notable. Creator is on board with that. —valereee (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Appears to be a stunt, but this could become something. Moving to draft seems like the best option. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mike_DeWine#Impeachment_Inquiries_of_Mike_DeWine as should be typical for this sort of news. Not opposed to Draftifying/Userfying if desired, but let's not move it back for a while... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect. The subject doesn't need to be split off from the main Mike DeWine article. Neither article is so long as to need to spin this off as its own page. I'd be OK with draftifying as well. --Jayron 32 16:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rhododendrites. This is a political stunt that is going nowhere at the speed of light. I would be shocked if long term this rates even a footnote in the governor's political bio. In the highly unlikely event this turns into more than a blip, we can always come back and restore the article. See also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete clear political stunt with very little chance of ever coming to a vote.Juneau Mike (talk) 20:17, 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 Speedy Delete. WP:G12 by Primefac. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Morozov

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

Subject does not meet notability criteria. PROD notice removed without explanation. Bazonka (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bazonka (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the subject clearly doesn't meet WP:N, the article also appears to be copy-pasted from the subject's website (copyvios report), so I've requested speedy deletion. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:48, 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 wp:SNOW delete. Hooker82 (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YSR Reservoir

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

Unsourced article on a non notable reservoir that certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG. Eternal Shadow Talk 22:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NGEO or WP:GNG, quite an achievement locally but not wikinotable. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that it meets basic threshold of notability. Glendoremus (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tried searching in Telugu but I could not find anything. Fails GNG, Ab207 (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kind of a delightful little thing, but there's no sourcing I can find.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cool... but not notable. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, - Local act, no reliable sources, does not meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable reservoir and un-sourced article. Priyanjali singh (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was redirect to Email. Sandstein 07:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premium email

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

The article offers nothing that would not be in the email article. Premium + product name is not normally sufficient for an encyclopaedia entry. Also, unreferenced. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have begun making improvements to the article's layout and navigation; I have also added references. I find this article notable. If we decide to merge, WP:ATD-M there is no section on the Email article for premium or pay email, so that is a likely target. Lightburst (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (there's nothing to merge) to Email, which, if you charge for it, is the subject here. The only source added thus far that's about "premium email" is a "top 5" list hosted by ... a commercial email company. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites:, thanks for checking. There may be something more soon - please check back. Lightburst (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a marketing term. It is typically code for paid email, in contrast to free email. Some providers offer a "premium" class of service and lower tiers, though if they call it premium, professional, gold, or whatever is variable. Yahoo offers a "professional premium". Paid email is more objective and accurate IMO for the topic and might be less objectionable on marketing grounds, premium sounds kind of spammy. I would suggest before there is a separate article on paid email have some content about it in the email article. -- GreenC 23:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good suggestion about the name. We could move it now. Lightburst (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC: I completed that move for the sake of accuracy. Lightburst (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I just moved it back. Doing this in the middle of an AfD is just going to be confusing with incoming links and closing tools. If it survives, it can be moved after the AfD is closed if anyone thinks it's appropriate to do so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? links all over the project were made, and closers know what they are doing. Sigh... There is precedence for such moves during AfD. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, moves are done frequently during AfD per WP:HEY, it greatly helps in certain cases to reframe the topic correctly. There is no technical reason to undo the move when it helps editors judge the nature of the article. I have done it more times than I can count and never had complaints about tools or incoming links. -- GreenC 15:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has spent any time at AfD should really know that performing moves mid-discussion, especially without a clear consensus behind it, is controversial. Not necessarily disallowed, but at bare minimum it's subject to BRD like any other bold page move, so there's not much argument about someone moving it back pending discussion. Personally, I don't like it. Determining what the underlying subject is is often part of figuring out whether it's notable, and if a subset of people simply decide what it is then everyone else is forced to adapt/argue/waste time. In this case, it's not so egregious, but there's definitely a difference -- one that I would argue strengthens the case for redirecting. "Premium" is about [some ambiguous set of] special features that you pay for. "Paid" literally just means "you pay for it" and thus includes any and all email that you happen to pay for, like all of the many services in the early days of email that charged you just for having an email address (or for removing a limit of 10 emails in your inbox or whatever). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to email. There is no justification for having a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's (currently) no content at Email about paid/premium services, so unless anything here is actually merged in, a redirect would be inappropriate. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Email: Best to briefly talk about it in the target article if possible. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Zainal Abidin

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

It's depressing when an article has a string of references that are direct press release material or are slightly rehashed press release material to the exclusion of useful references. This is a well disguised advert.

The gentleman is just a businessman doing his job, and is thus WP:ROTM, and this despite the honours bestowed upon him whcih might be the sole claim to some form of notability in this article. This existed in the Draft: space and was declined at WP:AFC, pushed back for further work. Draftification ought to be ruled out as an outcome because it was moved against advice. Fiddle Faddle 21:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 21:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 21:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 21:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mccapra – Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 20:01, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giridhar Premsingh

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Sole claim to notability is that he's CFO of non-notable DoiT International, which is also currently at AFD. Can't find significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, just the press release and LinkedIn cited here. Draft was declined twice, for the same reasons. Captain Calm (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the company isn't notable, that the person is even less notable. Could be a borderline A7. Eternal Shadow Talk 22:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are press release and profiles on various websites which are considered primary and not reliable. Others have no significant coverage.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No reliable, independent coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 22:43, 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 and redirect to The Phoenix on the Sword. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thoth-Amon

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

Non-notable fictional character. The article has been tagged as no source since 2009, so there's nothing in the article that will help editors hunt down potential sources. This is a mirror. A WP:BEFORE search is turning up mirrors like the own above, blogs, online forums, and wikis. This appears to be unrelated, as the snippet I can get translates to "which would be the equivalent of a Thoth-Amon (1), but it does not seem that this name was used in ancient Egypt; here again it should be noted that despite the popularity of Hermes in Egypt Roman, its inhabitants," which doesn't seem relevant. I'm not seeing any evidence that Thoth-Amon passes WP:GNG, although I'm willing to be proven wrong. If that one quoted source is somehow relevant, then maybe this dude is notable, although I'm not convinced it's relevant. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lenghty WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in classic fancruft style we lack anything near the sourcing to justify the length of the article. Wikipedia has no grandfather clause and we should not hold on to clearly substandard articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on a search for sources, with no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Article cannot meet the WP:GNG even with best efforts. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Phoenix on the Sword as a WP:CHEAP alternative to deletion per WP:ATD-R. I searched a couple times in the past, and I never found anything to support a standalone article. It's a valid search term, though, and this target provides the most relevant information for a reader, being the original Howard work he was in. The articles for works that used him later don't have much info other than he was there. -2pou (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Could not find sources to support reliability.Alex-h (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Ait Idir

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

This is one of the legacy pages coming from a time when we did not really enforce the need for Wikipedia to be built on secondary sources. It is also POV pushing in its very existence. It is not built on secondary sources, and any secondary sources there are make only very passing mentions to Ait Idir, it is built almost entirely on primary sources, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia, and is clearly not built on indepdent, reliable, 3rd-party secondary sources John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and warn the nominator that competence and honesty are required. This nomination is utter nonsense. It is utterly false to say that the article "is not built on secondary sources". The article includes no fewer than seven news articles as sources, including pieces from the Boston Globe, the Associated Press, the New York Times, and two from the Washington Post. These sources substantiate virtually every salient claim in the article. The nominator's statement that "any secondary sources there are make only very passing mentions to Ait Idir" is utterly false. The Boston Globe piece describes Idir as the central figure in the case it discusses. The first WaPo article discusses Idir's testimony in some detail. The second WaPo article is almost entirely devoted to Idir. An honest, competent editor would not have made the statements in this nomination. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Johnpacklambert, I am concerned over whether you understand your obligations under WP:BEFORE. Aren't you supposed to do your best to conduct your own meaningful web search, so you confirm or refute for yourself whether the underlying topic meets our inclusion criteria? If you made an effort to comply with your obigation, I'd be happy to help you improve your web search skills.

I am working on an essay, User:Geo Swan/opinions/When complying with BEFORE is not straighforward. Mustafa Ait Idir is an example of a topic where complying with BEFORE is not straighforward, as his name has been transliterated multiple ways from Arabic to English. Different transliterations include:

Mustafa Ait Idir
Mustafa Ait Idr
Mustapha Ait Idir
Mustapha Ait Idr
Mustafa Idir
Mustafa Idr
Mustapha Idir
Mustapha Idr

If you did a web search, but your search didn't include all the transliterations, your web search fell short. Geo Swan (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Die sieben scheußlichen Jahre: Keine Unterstützung nach Entlassung aus dem US-Lager" [The seven hideous years: No support after release from the US camp]. Der Standard (in German). 2010-04-21. Retrieved 2020-08-25. Mustafa Ait Idir will seinen Kopf nicht in die Vergangenheit stecken, wie er sagt. Er würde gern nur an die Zukunft denken. Wenn da nicht die Gegenwart wäre. Der ehemalige Guantánamo-Häftling, der in Bosnien lebt, wird dauernd von den "Konsequenzen der Vergangenheit" eingeholt. Mit dem Stigma des "Terror-Häftlings" belegt, kann er keinen Job finden, mit dem er seine Familie erhalten kann. Er unterrichtet ein wenig Karate und produziert Visitenkarten: Für 100 Stück bekommt er 25 bosnische Mark, also 12 Euro.
"Bosnian Detainees Return Home After Seven Years In Guantanamo". Radio Free Europe. 2008-12-17. Retrieved 2020-08-25. Last month, a U.S. judge in Washington ordered the release without delay of Boudella al-Hajj, Mustafa Ait Idr, and Mohammed Nechle, saying the U.S. government's case was not strong enough to continue holding them. The judge noted in his ruling that the suspicion of their involvement in terrorism activities was based on only one source, the credibility of which was unverifiable.
Sabrina Toppa (2017-05-06). "I Want Americans to Know That Guantánamo Happened Not to Monsters, but to Men". Mother Jones magazine. Retrieved 2020-08-25. Lakhdar Boumediene and Mustafa Ait Idir were part of the "Algerian Six," a group of men rounded up in Bosnia on the unproven claim they had plotted to bomb the American Embassy in Sarajevo. The two were beaten, shackled, blindfolded, and transferred in January 2002 to the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base—where they languished for seven years without charges under torturous conditions.
Marc Perelman (2007-12-04). "From Sarajevo to Guantanamo: The Strange Case of the Algerian Six". Mother Jones magazine. Retrieved 2020-08-25. In an April 2005 suit seeking records about the detainees' treatment, they contend that one of the detainees, Mustafa Ait Idir, was severely beaten on two occasions and that his face was once held under water in the toilet of his cell.
"WITNESSES OF THE UNSEEN: SEVEN YEARS IN GUANTÁNAMO". Kirkus Reviews. 2017-04-05. Retrieved 2020-08-25. Other than an introduction and some additional material about the authors' cases, the book is entirely made up of the words of Boumediene and Idir, translated in interviews with Norland and List.
Christine Lagorio (2005-01-31). "Orwellian Guantanamo". CBS News. Retrieved 2020-08-25. To understand why the United States Supreme Court — and now a growing number of lower federal courts — is becoming increasingly skeptical of unfettered executive-branch power in the war on terror, all you need to do is read the colloquy between accused terror-detainee Mustafa Ait Idr and the court officer in charge of his case.
"Blacked Out Bay". Vice News. Retrieved 2020-08-25.
Lucile Malandain. "Gefangenenlager Guantánamo: "Ein Ort schlimmer als die Hölle"" [Guantánamo prison camp: "A place worse than hell"]. AFP (in French). Retrieved 2020-08-25. Er hat die Schließung des Lagers auf Kuba angeordnet, das der ehemalige Häftling Mustapha Ait Idir als einen Ort schlimmer als die Hölle beschreibt.
"Verantwortung übernehmen: Wie man den Fall auch wendet, er bleibt ein Dilemma" [To take responsibility: Whichever way you turn the case, it remains a dilemma] (in German). 2010-04-21. Und das Mindeste ist, dass die USA jene angemessen entschädigen, die wie Mustafa Ait Idir (siehe Schwerpunktseite) heute in Europa leben und nicht wissen, wie sie ihre Familien ernähren sollen.

Keep - disclaimer, I started this article. As above, nomination does not comply with BEFORE, and subject clearly measures up to GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don’t see any merit in this nomination. The article is well-sourced. Mccapra (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While over-reliance on primary sources is a problem in an article, only the failure to have more than one GNG-qualifying reliable source would give ground for deletion. Even besides the BEFORE issue with the nom, this is a clear keep. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 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. Sandstein 07:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of the merger of the territories of French India with India

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

Content fork, original research, almost no references (not a reason for deletion but illustrates the likely original research), and an essay; it is a list of former French possessions in India combined with likely original research on why/how they were handed back to India, not an encyclopedia article. Maybe each of those discrete parts might be encyclopedic, but as of now, it is just an unencyclopedic essay. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR--RegentsPark (comment) 20:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTESSAY and original research. Ajf773 (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any needed analysis of this issue can be included in the article on French India, there is no need for this content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is a horrid article, but contains significant content which we do not have elsewhere in WP. French establishments in India is a long article, which is cluttered up by including a long list of governors and commissioners. If that were moved to a separate list article, there would be plenty of space for merging the section of the article under discussion as a new section "End of French India". Several of the territories unilaterally decided to join the Indian republic and the rest followed. According to something I heard (not necessarily true) it may be that residents of these territories are entitled to French citizenship, which in turn entitles them to work in EU. Thus perhaps this is not as dead a topic as it might appear. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One problem with merging any content from this article is that it almost entirely unreferenced. The basic points of integration are referenced and discussed briefly at Political_integration_of_India#Colonial_enclaves. 24.151.56.107 (talk) 15:56, 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 23:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sycophancy (version 2)

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

Dictionary definition that duplicates Sycophancy. It used to be at the latter title until Sycophant was moved there. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is really no need for two articles on the topic, the main article is about the English usage of the word and it covers its original meaning in Greek and its history.★Trekker (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we dont need two articles on the same subject. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 23:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatoon Concert Band

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

Non notable amateur wind band. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable, independent, substantial sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:59, 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 keep. A merge can be discussed at the article... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 61 Motorcycle Club

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

Non-notable club, fails, WP:ORG. Article is mostly a WP:COATRACK for a smattering of crimes by supposed members or ex-members. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, largest outlaw motorcycle group in New Zealand, covered by the book Patched and the New Zealand encyclopedia Te Ara. I wouldn't object to the coatrack list of crimes in the history section being removed., but if they're kept I can add citations from Patched to some of them.-gadfium 22:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the sources I'm seeing, there might be a weak case for notability but it seems like a good candidate to just Merge into the parent article, Gangs_in_New_Zealand, which already has a section devoted to this club. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while there is obvious scope for the article to be improved, this is one of the most significant gang organisations in NZ. Obviously notable, and 40 years of sources on it for whoever wants to use them.--IdiotSavant (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG beyond any doubt. Surprising nomination. Schwede 66 18:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Oklahoma. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kojo Asamoa-Caesar

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

Fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate and is not independently notable outside of his campaign GPL93 (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Oklahoma where he is already mentioned. If he wins, the biography can be recreated then. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for campaign brochures. If he wins we will create an article, if not he is not notable. We long ago decided merely being a major party nominee for congress is not enough on its own to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Oklahoma since redirects are cheap. He's unlikely to win, but if he does it can be recreated. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:10, 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 redirect to List of characters in The Railway Series#Rheneas (Number 2). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rheneas

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

Deprodded by Andrew Davidson with the rationale per WP:DEPROD. Well, since this is apparently controversial, it'll come here. I'm finding toy sales sites, open wikis, unreliable blogs. This community blog is about a toy based on Rheneas, and includes very little about the character himself. The large number of The Railway Series books by Awdry are primary source material, so they don't establish notability. This brought up a reference to Rheneas in the Google scholar preview, but the context indicated a fictional community, not this character. This paper only mentions Rheneas once and does not establish significant coverage. Not seeing any way this fictional character passes WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to whatever List of characters in The Railway Series article comes out of this rationalisation process. I'm getting all the same sources as HF; there's nowt much to merge, since it's almost all unsourced. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 20:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The usual bad dePROD of the garden-variety WP:FANCRUFT. This should have been speedily redirected, but it such bad deprods that make me fear redirecting without a community consensus behind it, so I can't blame the nom for AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- Recent AfDs of these TtTE characters have pretty much all determined that they're crufty and not individually notable, and this is no exception. It's probably safe to just boldly redirect them going forward. Reyk _YO! 14:11, 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 23:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Upadhye

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

Google News search barely reverts with 8 results. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a puff piece. Mohanabhil (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, just isn't enough there. EverybodyEdits (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV exists. Ab207 (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,no sign of supporting WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 10:09, 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. Whilst the !vote tally (which seems to have been heavily affected by canvassing) is more or less even, the strength of arguments is in favour of deletion. Many of the keep !votes are bare assertions of notability or veracity, and on the whole fail to refute the central argument for deletion: that there are insufficient reliable sources to write an article on this topic from a neutral point of view. Several participants mentioned that there may be material suitable for merging into other articles. If anyone wants to do that, I can temporarily restore the deleted version as a draft. – Joe (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The article is a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CFORK in a long series of such articles that have been created (see recent AfDs:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myth of Tito, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs). It is largely based on one source (Talk:Destruction_of_books_in_post-independence_Croatia#Single source issue which is a heavy WP:POV/WP:FRINGE of an advocate of one of the state factions in the Yugoslav Wars. Thus, the article has a large WP:NOTABILITY problem because its legitimacy as a subject, can't be established in independent sources. The article tries to solve the notability problem - the fact that it can't be established that there was an organized mass destruction of books in Croatia by the introduction of sentences such as In 2012 Viktor Ivančić published a text dedicated to destruction of books in Croatia during 1990's, underlining that in 2012 it was basically impossible to buy books published in Serbia or Bosnia and Herzegovina in Croatian bookstores, which he perceived as an extension of bibliocide. Setting aside the absurdity of the claim that in Croatia you can't buy books published in Serbia, this creates an even larger problem as it establishes the article as extreme WP:FRINGE content. The original title of the article was Bookocide in Croatia. After it was moved to at least solve the WP:POVNAMING issues, it was heavily tagged. Then, back in May, I said in the talkpage that if none of the issues were addressed, it would get to AfD. The article has remained in an "abandoned", heavily tagged status (one of the many that stay in this state for many years). I think that it's time to delete it. Maleschreiber (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly WP:FORK, not notable and fringe. N.Hoxha (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I said opinion about this article earlier on talk page. The article is mostly based on a single source. There were and regular removal of the books in the Croatia. There was and war destruction of the books(bombing, vandalism, etc) on all sides. Based on the above I think that this article should be deleted. Mikola22 (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Opose - We have already had similar discussions. Numerous RS are cited in the article. We should not relativize crimes and discriminatory policies with stories about “all sides”. Moreover, it is well-documented that destruction started in 1990, shortly before the Yugoslav Wars. If someone doesn't think that the article is of good quality, they can rearrange it in accordance with the policies and sources, but it's not a solution to delete something that is well documented. (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)--WEBDuB (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Those events took place regardless of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and personal attempts at relativization ("they all did it", "it was regularly done"), which are appalling. The key sources are reliable and calling this article and events fringe is simply ignorant in my book. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"they all did it", if you comment on me this refers to the destruction in the Croatian War of Independence. "The devastating fact is that despite all international laws and regulations, up to ground were destroyed as many as forty-two libraries, page 15.[1] As for "it was regularly done" claim, each country has its own regulations about removal of books(old, worn out, unusable, uninteresting, etc), including Croatia. Mikola22 (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a lot of things have happened, and it happens all the time, every day, including a whole host of events and phenomena, but, whether we like it or not, they are not necessarily included in Wikipedia, and there are a whole host of reasons why, too.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per all above. --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but use sourceable chunks or merge them with suitable existing article. Argument: Although it is not a mystery and there is not the slightest doubt that populist daily politics and nationalist intrigues spawned the idea to remove as many books written in what was considered not-really-Croatian, and printed in both Cyrillic and Latin, as possible, it never, at any point nor in any shape or form, induced a uniform and consistent action, nor introduction of state-level policies, all the while no one claimed to know what happened with these books, after being removed from a number of public libraries and other public spaces, including abandoned privately owned ones - were they “destroyed,” burned, thrown away, stored, sold, donated, whatever. Except that one book, which is the only real attempt to study it, and the sole source for this article, the removal was almost exclusively talked about in the context of nationalistic intrigues and political games, including international, the Croatian-Serbian, quarrels. But, what's most disturbing about this article, and especially its title, is that it evokes a feeling and is reminiscent of similar Nazi policies. However, whatever happened in Croatia was not "the destruction of books in post-independent Croatia", there was no systematic compulsory removal, let alone "destruction", not to mention that there were no mandatory laws that forced public and private property owners to " destroy "or hand over their non-Croatian language and/or Cyrillic script books to anyone, and so on, and so forth. While being inaccurate, the title itself is deceptively suggestive.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Santasa99. Hope you're well. These are some very good points and there is an ad Hitlerum implication in the article, which further confirms that wikipedia shouldn't be used as a WP:SOAPBOX about political advocacy. Side comment: it's basically the same group of people who unsuccessfully try to !keep these articles every time, so the closing admin should take that into account when the discussion is closed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What gives you the idea to bash and label editors who do not agree with your particular viewpoint? Try to behave yourself like a civil person. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, whatever happened in Croatia was not "the destruction of books in post-independent Croatia", there was no systematic compulsory removal, let alone "destruction", not to mention that there were no mandatory laws that forced public and private property owners to " destroy "or hand over their non-Croatian language and/or Cyrillic script books to anyone, and so on, and so forth. - This is simply not true. Numerous RS are cited in the article, that campaign is well-documented. For example, many historians and intellectuals, who are otherwise known for criticizing Serbian elites, have spoken publicly about these events in Croatia. [2]--WEBDuB (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it didn't happen? And since your conclusion (t)his is simply not true came in the context of the rest of this long quote from my post and your subsequent elaboration of the sources, and all that regardless of everything I said in the first sentence of my comment, I have to ask what exactly is not true in my argument?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was systematic compulsory removal and destruction of books and cultural property. Not only that but destruction of anti-fascist heritage, memorials to one of the most brutal and deadliest genocides, monuments to Serbs, even Nikola Tesla, etc. All this is well documented. Even Croatian media and Croatian historians have discussed this, for example one of the most prominent Hrvoje Klasić. None of this is unknown, nor is fringe..--WEBDuB (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even the generally positive review of Lešaja's book by Robert Hayden in Slavic Review says the book notes that whilst there was pressure on librarians to "cleanse" their libraries of "unsuitable" books, the pressure was "informal". Your characterisation of it as "compulsory" is clearly wrong. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Maleschreiber gave a good summary regarding the reasons. The article is largely based on a single, non-English source, and per WP:EXTRAORDINARY: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." The article has a very exceptional claim, that the discarding of old, obsolete books (that were written in a scrypt or a standardized variety of a language that are no longer official, or with a strong ideological bias) in a time frame of over 20 years is a "bookocide", "libricide", or a "mass destruction". Yet, it doesn't have high-quality sources to back the claim. Outdated books are often replaced by libraries. I somehow doubt that school libraries in Slovenia have their shelves filled with books in Serbo-Croatian/Cyrillic from the 1970s, or the likes of "Edvard Kardelj's collected works". Tezwoo (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is a worthless WP:POVFORK, no content worth saving. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trying to look at this objectively, no matter the personal view of the creator or other editors, it would appear that this did happen, and it was notable enough that there is RS supporting it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We have a notable topic here and the sources used are okay. It would be better to have some in English, but regardless, it took place and RS are clear about this. Soundwaweserb (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soundwaweserb:, most sources and information's from the article were based on same source. Mikola22 (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose More than 30 references and sources, no reason for delete. --MareBG (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MareBG:, most sources and information's from the article were based on same source. Mikola22 (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The subject crosses the basic notability threshold; there are multiple reliable sources that cover the topic. --Acamicamacaraca (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted in the previous AfDs[3], many editors from Serbian wikipedia who aren't reguarly involved in editing in English wikipedia joined the discussion. The same phenomenon has occurred in every AfD and the community has been able to assess it for what it is. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's the weight of the arguments that count, not how many !keep or !delete have been collected. Now, a side comment for the sources: There aren't 30 sources which support the article, there are some reviews of the book which is the main source that put forward this theory and there are several articles from dubious websites and blogs from authors who want to show how unwelcome "Serbian books" are in Croatia. The article is a collection of all these different concepts and ideas. The subject doesn't exist outside of that one book - it is the wikipedia article via its narrative which tries to create the scope of the subject: namely, that some incidents during the Yugoslav Wars (which every editor here surely condemns regardless of opinions about this article), an allegedly low availability of books from Serbia in Croatian bookstores and a low amount of books in Cyrillic in Croatian libraries - all together can be summed up as "Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia". This scope, however, is not established in independent, reliable bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloids that talk about that one, non-English, source are the basis of the article and its dubious theory. And for the record, there are also sources, of at least the same quality, that dispute the claim from that single source. Just to name a few: [4] [5] [6]. Not to mention that authors such as Ramet, Tanner, Hoare, that extensively wrote about the Yugoslav Wars, say nothing about this "bookocide". Tezwoo (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Some of the contents can be merged. I don't think the subject is notable enough to deserve separate article. For example, VRS destroyed Vijećnica and Oriental Institute, and burned a lot of the books, but I'm not sure I could find quality sources to name an article "Bibliocide in Bosnian War". Rather, I could move all the information into Vijećnica and Oriental Institute articles. To fellow Opposing colleagues: IF there was systematic effort to destroy books in Croatia, clearly, there should be some extraordinary sources for such claims. Mhare (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These events have nothing to do with each other. No source brings them into a temporal or causal relationship. This is not just destruction in war, but systematic on several levels over several years.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of systematic destruction on several levels over several years which is the subject of the article is not confirmed in bibliography. It is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim without RS sources which confirm it. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not exceptional claim or fringe, it is confirmed in bibliography and it was covered even by Croatian media and Croatian historians. All editors know that this happened, we should not hide or relativize.--WEBDuB (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WEBDuB, I was using it as analogy what went into my thought process if I would reasonably tried to decide the subject I'm writing about deserves separate article. The key things is: reason. There is lack of it, and some editors here are too deep in some of nationalistic shit to be ever reasonable ;-) Mhare (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I know post-independence Croatia is into some pretty nasty far-right shit, with CW Wikipedia on top of it. I'm aware of it, I'm just trying to present you reasonable person-to-person arguments, and not just repeating same old. Stuff that happened can be surely moved into right article. It's like with Demonization of Serbs, article that has no place on Wikipedia as I explained with an analogy there is no Demonization of Japanese and Germans, there should be no Demonization of Serbs, but yet, y'all automatically voted for it! As all the Croatian editors voted for Tesla's nationality. Ridiculous and tiring! Mhare (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge reliably sourced content to Independence of Croatia or similar article, as this appears to be a subtopic. With no personal experience in this area, I'm basing my opinion on the arguments above and a perusal of some of the sources. It would be much easier to assess if sources could be found for the alleged contemporary criticism when the action was occurring. That said, while many sources stem from the publication of a single book, they all felt this topic warranted coverage and they do no appear to express that this event didn't happen. Even editors voting for deletion acknowledge that this was an occurrence, so I'm unsure how this is WP:FRINGE or how we serve the encyclopedia by removing information that (presumably) reliable sources covered. There may be a current lack of details as to what caused the action or what the actual result was (were the books destroyed or just relocated?), so a title change may be warranted and the content should be copyedited for tone and validity. —Ost (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ost, you are on the right track, and indeed some controversial (I would say even shameful in some instances) occurrence did happened, so some information deserve to be preserved, however not as a standalone article, and certainly not with this title and narrative-tone. If you look back by checking article history, the whole thing started as a "bookocide", with a title "Bookocide in post-independence Croatia", which was complete nonsense so we managed to wrestle it into this halfway neutral but still quite a bit heavy-handed on implications.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to remove all the dubious and unrelated elements from the article and kept only specific incidents - very little would remain. So little in fact that it would fail WP:NOTABILITY on its own and it would have to be added as a few sentences to another article. The subject of the article is a narrative put forward by the article itself and one book, but it's not a shared narrative in bibliography - even in the article's sources. The reality is that this article cannot be salvaged or be made into something else - that would have happened by now. Instead it has remained in this heavily tagged status and will remain so if kept, because the only actual option that exists here is to WP:TNT delete it and any editor who wants to can write about specific incidents in specific articles without the burden of having to encompass it to a grand narrative of a systematic, organized, all-Croatian persecution of everything Cyrillic since 1991. This extremely particular political-ideological-social narrative which the article puts forward doesn't find validation in bibliography. --Maleschreiber (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is notable. The state of the article notwithstanding, that is not a reason for deletion. Many articles are in very poor state, but that is not a reason for deletion. The only criterion is whether the topic is notable. Khirurg (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weakly-sourced content fork, per others. Zaathras (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I gave the topic a google search and there appears to be coverage of this topic even in English language sources.★Trekker (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice I was initially in two minds about this, hence my late comment. On one hand, there is one reliably published book about this topic (however the current article title is not neutral and the article should be at Disposal of books in post-independence Croatia because the books weren't "destroyed", they were disposed of), the book was positively reviewed by Robert Hayden from the University of Pittsburgh in the academic journal Slavic Review in January 2013, and the publication of the book itself is the subject of several news reports, mainly in the yellow pressa and commentary by non-experts. I note, with considerable concern, that a 2018 review of recent history of Croatian libraries in the international journal of librarians IFLA Journal [7] makes no mention whatsoever of this "phenomena" of book destruction. On the other hand, this article is a complete POV mess that has been tagged for months, and the creator, Antidiskriminator, has done nothing to fix it. Antidiskriminator has created several highly POV anti-Croat/pro-Serb articles since their long-term TBAN on Serbia and Serbs in the 20th century was lifted, and IMHO their continuing poor wikibehaviour and POV-pushing agenda shouldn't be rewarded. So, as far as I am concerned, while the subject exists in sources, it is only one book and reporting on that one book, mainly in the yellow press, and so I am concerned that WP:ONESOURCE may apply here (a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject), as Maleschreiber has already stated. But more importantly, even if there should be an article on the subject, the extensive highly POV agenda of this one isn't it, and this is a classic example of where WP:TNT should be applied. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Anti-Serb sentiment#Croatia. I had seen the nomination but only now decided to step in. The topic deserves coverage on Wikipedia, but the article as is now is written very badly. Hence it should be deleted, and then maybe rewritten to be in line with policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:Title, and to cover the entire destruction of books in the territories that were part of Yugoslavia -- not only cases when the books were written by Serbs or people perceived as "pro-Serb". Similar cases were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myth of Tito and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs, written by the very same editor, and redirected so later they can be written from scratch in line with Wiki rules. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing editor As we know, in such cases consensus is determined by the way how arguments stand against Wiki policies, not just by counting !votes. Such Balkan discussions have for years been damaged by canvassing etc. The most recent case: other editors have expressed concerns about canvassing, as lately in every discussion perceived as a "voting process", certain editors on srwiki who rarely edit on enwiki, appear and !vote the same way. Some of them have made blind reverts too here or there without any tp participation etc. Of course this does not mean that editors from srwiki or sqwiki are not welcome to participate here and give their opinion, but in any case the consensus building process should not be held hostage to blind "votes" by any side. I see someone has already put a related template at the head of the discussion, due to their own concerns. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I also have concerns about canvassing/vote stacking from sr WP. There are several editors who have voted here who virtually never edit former Yugoslav articles on en WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Clearly notable with coverage in multiple reliable sources. I've rewritten the article to include those reliable sources since no one else seemed remotely willing to do so. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree Peacemaker67 there has been a lot canvassing from sr WP towards this AfD with many factually false arguments too from several editors who voted !(strong) keep. @Amanuensis Balkanicus: what exactly have you rewritten? ~~It's the same article [8] with the same sources [9] - with slightly better styling and grammar~~, but with an even heavier POV than before as now it openly claims that a "libricide" happened in Croatia. The extreme POV and FRINGE still amazes every time I read it Writing the same year, Vjeran Pavlaković noted, "it is ... impossible to find any books in Cyrillic for sale anywhere, except for a few hard to find places such as the Serbian Cultural Society's tiny library." There are enough good arguments in this AfD to delete a very bad piece of propaganda that wants us to believe that in Croatia today you can't buy books in Serbian/Cyrillic and as of the latest rewrite that a libricide took place in 1990-2010. The latest round of editing by AB really shows that the only solution for this article is to delete it. The alternative is for it to be a hub for even heavier POVs. --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming anything. If you disagree with the term libricide then take it up with the likes of Dora Komnenović and Robert Hayden. And deriding other volunteers as "propaganda" peddlers isn't bound to get a discussion to go your way. Learn some manners. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a piece of political advocacy - one of the reasons that caused it to be heavily tagged. I didn't mention any particular editor, so don't make comments that can be construed as WP:ASPERSIONs. Now, I really want an answer @Amanuensis Balkanicus:. You based your !strong keep on the fact that you included those reliable sources since no one else seemed remotely willing to do so. But as everyone can see the sources are the same (Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia#References)-old version. The changes are mostly in styling and use of English and the fact that now the article openly has a section named "libricide" - a very heavy POV claim. I won't take it to Robert Hayden, because he's the reviewer of the book, not its writer. ~~Peacemaker67 can you check it too? I think that it highlights a large problem when any editor claims that they added sources as a reason for !keep when they haven't done so.~~ --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking it isn't good rhetorical form to vehemently claim that you know more about a text than the person who wrote it. For the record, the only references that were retained from AD's version are Komnenović and the Ugrešić interview. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I had a cache problem and the page didn't load properly. Now, I can see your edits - so an apology is in order about that particular issue. But I don't see how your edits confirm that a "Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia" existed/exists that country. The heavy POV issues from AD's version remain with all the claims that you can't buy books in Serbian/Cyrillic in Croatia and the new claim about libricide. You've also introduced contradictions by trying to redefine the article as one that encompasses all cases where literature has been targetted in Croatia by any group. In the lead you write that The targeting of books commenced in 1990, shortly before the outbreak of the Croatian War of Independence, and lasted until 2010. and then in the article you write that In February 2018, an effigy of the Croatian-language LGBTQ+ children's book My Rainbow Family was publicly burned by right-wing activists. That can be written in LGBT rights in Croatia too, but the main problem is that the scope of the article has become an all-encompassing narrative about every claim that exists about the targetting of literature in Croatia. So, I will definitely apologize to you for not recognizing at first that you did indeed add new sources - but those sources are used in a way that creates the subject of the article as an editorial narrative, but the sources themself don't mention the "Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia". --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For example, During Croatian president Franjo Tuđman's tenure, the Nobel laureate Ivo Andrić was blacklisted by the Croatian government. is something that may or may not have happened, but what does it have to do with "Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia" or "Libricide"? It brings me back to my original argument that much of the article isn't about the subject itself, which can't be confirmed in bibliography ("Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia") even in the latest round of editing which reintroduced the libricide claim. If Tuđman had an ideological problem with Andrić and blacklisted him, you can probably add that somewhere, but why is it part of a "libricide"?--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perica clearly states that Andrić's works, alongside those of multiple others, were slated for "cleansing". The decision to rename this article to Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia (instead of Bookocide/Libricide in Croatia) makes my recent additions even less contentious. Since the scope is now wider, it doesn't preclude me from citing sources where the words "bookocide" and "libricide" aren't explicitly used, and includes all destruction of books, as opposed to solely the JNA shelling of libraries or solely the Croatian government's policy of getting rid of ethnically, linguistically and politically undesirable works (which multiple reliable sources refer to as libricide). As for the 2010/2018 contradiction, that's a phrasing issue than can be easily fixed. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perica clearly use same source(Croatian newspaper) that is, he copies source from Ante Lešaja book. For all this information's additional sources would be needed. We cannot say with certainty that all newspaper articles are accurate, and we do not know who writes these articles. In this case Jutarnji List at that time is opposition newspapers. If we consider a newspaper to be a historical record then it is foundation for some book but most sources either have Lešaja book as a source or use information's ie sources from his book. It’s as someone writing a book about war crimes using mostly newspaper articles as evidence, I don't know if such a book could be used as a source on Wikipedia. Mikola22 (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ehhmm, no. Perica's book was published in 2002. Lešaja's book was published in 2012. The fact that two different scholars may have used the same primary source in their writings (I'm not even going to both to check, I'll take your word for it) is irrelevant. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanuensis Balkanicus:, @Maleschreiber:, the discontent regarding language and literature issues in Croatia, and polemics that took place within the disgruntled (mostly liberal) portion of society, which I will never shy away admitting to be a part of, nor that I (among other things) disagree with a language political games and intrigues, and, to stay on tracks, that I do not like the possibility that publishers and sellers in Croatia do not want to deal with Cyrillic literature, or that readers/customers do not want to read/buy it for whatever reason, still does not justify the title and narrative of this article. The statements cited here as a sources are not always relevant because they are misconstrued and/or taken out of context, not in the narrow immediate sense of the citation/statements meaning itself but in the broader context of purpose and message as well as the moment and the atmosphere in society at large. None of this justifies a standalone article, let alone with a title like we have now. I tend to agree more often than not with a likes of Pavlaković, Ugrešić and other like-minded people, and I accept many arguments in their polemics on this situation as well, but I can still spot attempts to use it to exaggerate or completely distort reality.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Santasa99: as it stands now the article would be accurate as List of controversies and incidents related to books in Croatia - with the libricide claim as a large subsection and without a substantial number of actual events. An article with that title for many reasons would get deleted. Some parts are also misleading because Forty-thousand copies of the Encyclopedia of Yugoslavia were discarded or destroyed. may or may not be actually true but the causes are many and are more related to the collapse of public libraries in the post-socialist Balkans. A comparable number of discarded Encyclopedias of Yugoslavia probably exists in Serbia and elsewhere. The narrative, however, which tries to bind all these issues together doesn't exist in bibliography, thus the subject of this article doesn't exist bibliography. The issue is not whether Perica (2002) is RS or not, but whether he puts forward the events which are listed in the article in the same scope as the article. Well, he doesn't - he examines the public discourse in the early 1990s in Croatia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It probably happened in every country in Central, East and SE Europe after socialism collapsed, purges of library shelves of various literature was common practice.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this article took those events from Croatia (which happened in Central, East and SE Europe after socialism collapsed) and made an original article about burning of books in Croatia. Therefore the intent was clearly not good, and now we have what we have. Mikola22 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edits to the article is basically an addition of more content from a source that was already there ("Komnenović 2018" was previously named "Bevernage & Wouters 2018"), some unrelated content from Perica 2002, a 2018 incident on a carnival that is also off topic, and content from a review of Lešaja's book.

As for the background, Knuth's 30-page section titled "Greater Serbia" was somehow summarized with a detailed description of one instance of vandalization of a Serb library by Croatian irregulars in 1992, and a short, general mention of JNA's shelling of libraries. Again a problem of undue weight, considering that the shelling of Croatian libraries/destruction of books by the JNA and Serb paramilitaries are covered in countless more sources than the subject we are discussing here. The current version of the article has the same problems.

And yes, throughout eastern Europe, post-communist countries largely discarded/removed/replaced books from the communist (1945-1989/1990) era. Here's a short overview of some of the reasons for that: [10] Tezwoo (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should not deny cultural genocide and discriminatory policies, despite being well documented by RS. It would not be good for Wikipedia's reputation. Such ideologies should be uncompromisingly described as they are and, in essence, to be condemn. It is often difficult to do that on Wikipedia, especially on Balkan topics. Still, I hope that rules and policies will prevail in the end. Perica clearly use same source(Croatian newspaper) that is, he copies source from Ante Lešaja book. For all this information's additional sources would be needed. - Such arguments are repeated over and over again. (WP:BLUDGEON?) If Perica and countless other authors have used this source, it means that it is reliable and significant. The bias of the Western media during the Yugoslav wars was well studied, often based on a single source and creating something that scholars defined as the “illusion of multiple sources”. In that case, we should edit 90% of the articles related to the Yugoslav wars. Hrvoje Klasić often talked about this topic. The Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which is far from pro-Serbian, also discussed. All this suggests that the topic is more than relevant. No one explained it in another context. Mentioning other post-communist countries and the crimes of Serbs is relativization and trivialization. When the sources put them in that context, then it can be explained in the article. Authors are often discriminated against on the basis of origin. Here, Vjekoslav Perica is a Croatian historian and is relevant. The author of the article has significantly improved the quality. It is difficult now for anyone impartial to dispute that. (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)--WEBDuB (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vjekoslav Perica doesn't examine anything close to the narrative he's being used as a back up to. Cultural genocide - a very serious allegation is being put forward so casually (- in the form of libricide - in this CFORK that loses all meaning as a term. The narrative of the article doesn't exist in bibliography, thus the article is a WP:SOAPBOX patchwork of unrelated events, narratives, ideas - all into a grand narrative that has no analytical meaning, the "Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia". The discardment of books from the yugoslav socialist era, Tuđman's dislike of Ivo Andrić, a library that was targetted by irregulars in 1992 during the Yugoslav Wars in response to JNA actions and a book that was burnt publicly in 2018 at an anti-LGBTQ rally don't fall in the narrative and subject which requires wikipedia to have an article about because they all involve books. That much should be obvious.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources exist" is not an argument when those sources don't deal with the subject you're putting forward.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Honestly, after like 20 years of looking at these kinds of issues in the English Wikipedia, I would think that we as a community would grow to recognize it more efficiently, but apparently it still requires so much effort and walls of text to get rid of such obvious gaming of the system. I recall a number of articles having been started by the same editor (Antidiskriminator) on various topics interesting to Serbian nationalists, and every time it's the same pattern - let's use the English Wikipedia to examine some weird nationalist talking point from the angle of - hey, surely if there's N random "sources" talking about this, therefore their narrative must be worth expounding on at length! Guess what - no. Just - no! The encyclopedia is not the place for this. I suppose it's logical to expect that every time these kinds of articles get written, they're "better" at it, with more purported support in sources, and it becomes less obvious they're pushing a point based on what is not an exhaustive examination of source material, and they stay online for *years*. Anyway, once this kind of abuse is belatedly noticed, we need to react by deterring further gaming of the system - admins need to examine the editing history of any editor who willingly contributed to this mess and voiced unequivocal support for this - for further WP:ARBMAC abuse. We know that history just keeps repeating itself, and we have to expect the same to happen again. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second that! --Maleschreiber (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy should NOT be used and supported by involved admins. That is textbook abuse of power through labeling other editors and building an atmosphere where editors can not express their opinion freely. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions on talk pages are one thing, constantly POV pushing in actual articles is a completely different thing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, this is so quaint. You're not only concocting this weird appeal to "omg we're being persecuted", but you already immediately called me an "involved admin". This is a tactic that has very often been used by WP:ARBMAC abusers, using WP:INVOLVED as a cudgel to try to dissuade any admin action. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK that violates WP:NPOV. As a second choice, a short merge would be fine. Any section about this should have very clear in-line attribution to sources, especially Dora Komnenović, so readers can discern the POV sources from the more neutral ones. Archrogue (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This page contains valid references. The topic of this article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per Wikipedia:Notability. Also per conclusion at WP:ANI (link) - the article isn't made up or some propaganda thing is established well enough...the topic is real enough, The phenomenon is called 'knjigocid' in Serbo-Croatian which would literally translate as 'bookocide' in English. Yes, it is a travesty against the English language, but no, it is not fabrication. and Well, I didn't say anything about the topic not being real.. Any eventual issues of the article can be resolved in collaboration between editors. Wikipedia is based on collaboration. Not on "No article/editor - no problem" attitude demonstrated by some editors here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the article about satanization of Serbs which you wrote before this one, "sources exist" is not an argument, when those sources either don't discuss the subject/narrative which you put forward or consist of one political advocacy pamphlet which put forward the narrative of "knjigocid". And don't use non-admin comments as "ANI conclusions" or half-quoted admin comments in order to strengthen your narrative. Now, I'm not going to fully quote that last comment in order to show what it truly says - any editor can read it for themselves and judge if what it puts forward is what Antidiskriminator claims it does. I'm against the practice of quoting editors who don't take part in a discussion in order to strengthen a particular narrative which they themselves haven't chosen to do so.--Maleschreiber (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is difficult to establish consensus when the same arguments are repeated multiple times. Some that favor deleting seem to argue WP:FORK and WP:FRINGE, and some that vote keep seem to argue WP:N. Hopefully a relist will make consensus clearer on this article for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A a s i m 17:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic should be covered in a neutral way. This article, even after being rewritten during this Afd discussion, continues to have the same problems. A new article, covering all cases of book destruction in former Yugoslavia, could be written with neutrality and NPOV wording. Sadsadas (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article may have some issues, but the topic is notable and discussed in reliable scholarly works: [11]. I don't see what would make Lešaja's book Knjigocid/Bookocide (as mentioned here) not reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: From her paper: "Nevertheless, the only two accounts entirely devoted to “libricide” are the Prosvjeta magazine special issue on “Bibliocide-Culturecide: Where One Burns Books, One Will Soon Burn People,” published in 2003 by the Serbian Cultural Society “Prosvjeta” (Srpsko kulturno društvo Prosvjeta) and Ante Lešaja’s volume about the destruction of books in Croatia between 1990 and 2010, Knjigocid. Uništavanje knjiga u Hrvatskoj 1990.-ih (Libricide. The Destruction of Books in Croatia in the 1990s)". The point is that most of the article(informations) are originally based on Ante Lešaja book. Otherwise, he himself research and write in the book whether some libraries are destroyed(in Serbian bombing) etc, and he gives his conclusions whether they were really destroyed or not. It could even be WP:FRINGE because no one confirms his conclusions (historian, etc). Also from her paper: "Lešaja’s work constitutes a valuable starting point for anyone interested in cultural heritage destruction in Croatia, the former Yugoslav area and broader", while here only Croatia is subject of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 10:44, 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 redirect to Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster. No input since relisitng, redirect seems the best alternative to deletion here. Tone 08:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Grosvenor, Duchess of Westminster

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

There is no indication in the article that the subject has received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of herself, thus failing WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The one sentence about her activities from her family's website. The rest is all routine coverage and genealogy. Googling her reveals virtually nothing. We should not have articles on people merely for the sake of genealogy or because they hold lofty titles; the same standards of notability apply to everyone, i.e. significant coverage. Surtsicna (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Westminster’s are probably the most important aristocratic family in Britain after the Royal Family, this is is still very important in that Country even in the 21st century, see Nobility. --Devokewater (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but where is the coverage of this lady herself? A notable family can be covered in an article about the family. Surtsicna (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster, her late husband, which is a proper article and covers everything here. --Tone 21:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A a s i m 17:43, 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. – Joe (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promart

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

I declined an A7 tag on this because it looks like a nationally important chain (in a non-English speaking country), but the tagger wants to edit war over it, so here we are. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A7 tagger also es-equivalent of PRODed the eswiki version recently. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep per [12] and [13]. Keep is provisional because I do not read Spanish, so cannot evaluate these sources for quality. I'd suggest that anyone searching limit their searches to "site:.pe"; I found that useful in refining the results. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Translate or Bing Translate does a fair job at translation. From what I can see though, in my opinion the references do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. The first talks about the opening of a new store (based on information provided by the company at various times), fails WP:ORGIND as this is not "Independent Content". The second talks about a survey on name recognition and says the company performs well at this, but this reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

10:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article without encyclopedic relevance, should have been improved by adding more information and references, Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions 20:51, 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. – Joe (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. M. H. Atwater

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

A seriously underreferenced BLP article that relies almost exclusively on self-published sources and reads like the subject's press release, in addition to arguably peddling pseudoscience. I see no indication of the subject meeting WP:ANYBIO or WP:NAUTHOR. The only outside source used to establish notability is an article in the Lancet, but that's just a passing mention in a footnote and hardly enough to establish notability. Even if the subject was notable, I see almost no content in this article that could be salvaged. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubbify per WP:NAUTHOR. Her book Beyond the Light (ISBN 9780380725403) was reviewed in Library Journal and Publishers Weekly, and she has published extensively in Journal of Near-Death Studies. I am reluctant to rely heavily on the latter, because it seems more than a little fishy even if peer-reviewed. Also gets some media coverage, albeit in a local paper [14]. She is charitably described as an eccentric and more accurately described as a charlatan, but I think she meets NAUTHOR. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What AP said. Prune it way back, but she's a notable author. pburka (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If there's sufficient coverage of one of her books to merit its own article, that can be handled separately but I find very little content about her in reliable sources. Tons in unreliable sources and tons of promotional content but not seeing enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR at this point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've just done some thorough editing on this page, which should give some indicator as to what the page will look like even *if* we pare it back, but I still don't think she meets WP:NAUTHOR. The one peer-sourced journal cited is not only brief, but is a personal connection to Atwater; the writer later went on to write the introduction for her self-published e-book (it lists a publisher, but the publisher is not actually a publisher; it is a company which facilitates easier self-publishing. Every reference which remains comes either from The Lancet article, or from Atwater's own writings, which I think violates W:NPOV. Similarly, the peer-reviewed discussions I was able to find, as User:AleatoryPonderings indicates, is a step beyond fishy. If we are to overhaul the article, it will need to be made more explicit that Atwater is not an expert, her qualifications are not from reputable institutions (you can apply for an honourary PHD from the Sri Lankan institution she received one from), and her expertise is non-scientific medicine. Similarly, her doctorate from the International College of Spiritual and Psychic Services is not an accredited university degree, per their website. Wikipedia isn't a place to pass value judgements, but even after having been edited down, the article itself serves little to no function other than as a tool for self-promotion. I honestly think it violates WP:FRINGETHEORY, too. I really do not agree with anyone who is saying she is a qualified authority in her field. For more information on my editing history and inability to find proper sourcing for the article's claims, see the article's Talk page.Imaginestigers (talk) 12:01, 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. czar 04:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmels

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

WP:PROMO for a car restoration company founded in 2016. Refs are to niche websites for car enthusiasts. I don't subscribe to the Times; that seems to be the only legit ref. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I removed the promotional photo gallery, but there is little more that can be done. The article is essentially advertising the business. Google Scholar brings up nothing (not that I expected it to have any meaningful results) and most results from a standard search are PR puff pieces from blogs and the like. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:03, 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 keep. – Joe (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karluk Manor

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

Does not meet notability that surpass WP:NORG or WP:NONPROFIT. One of those dime a dozen local area oriented homeless thing that is of no significance outside of that community. Graywalls (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sustained significant coverage in the Anchorage Daily News. I saw one significant write-up in the Seattle Weekly, and some in Al Jazeera. I think I also saw an atticle in the Fairbanks News-Miner. There is also some coverage of the facility in Google Scholar. This was the first Housing First facility in Alaska and has attracted a lot of attention. I'm on my cell at te moment so it's not the easiest to round up sources. Perhaps this could eventually be merged into an article on homelessness in Anchorage if someone writes one, but it satisfies WP's notability requirements even as a standalone article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added significant coverage to the article in a further reading section. There is also more that could be added from the Anchorage Daily News beyond what I put in further reading. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved them over to talk, because article space is not a scratch pad for something like this. Graywalls (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you've already made up your mind and are utilizing trickery to maintain your denial about a staggering number of sources for something you claim to be "...dime a dozen local..." yada yada yada. The basic starting point for notability is sustained coverage in independent, third-party sources, which has been met in spades. Now for the other side of the coin. For an article that's existed for nearly a decade with a WP:BEFORE search turning up such a laundry list of diverse sources, there's really nothing worth reading there. This suggests a classic WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP nomination, further pushing the project in the direction of a popularity contest. Calliopejen is on to something with her suggestion, though. Homelessness in Anchorage is a topic with substantial coverage and no article (the ADN is several months into a year-long series with reporters dedicated to the topic, no doubt part of their ProPublica partnership). Karluk Manor's operator, RurAL CAP, has existed for 55 years, is a substantial organization and has many verifiable accomplishments to its credit, and no article. Mention of this could easily be redirected there, or to existing content such as Fairview, Anchorage, Housing First or Homelessness in the United States by state#Alaska. I seem to recall coming across a list of Housing First facilities, which appears to no longer exist. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the redirect targets suggested by RadioKAOS, Homelessness in the United States by state#Alaska is probably the best one, but if we put it there, we would probably end up losing the work I did to assemble sources. I think it's better to keep it where it is for now. Fairview, Anchorage is probably where it would get lost the least, but I don't know that the neighborhood would appreciate being the place for people to write a massive section about something they may consider a negative part of their community, and one that attracts more than its fair share of attention compared to the rest of the neighborhood. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of practice, the practice of merging organizations/companies failing notability into a city/town/village page is probably not a good idea. Graywalls (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you about whether this particular organization is notable, but agree on the broader point. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources found by Calliopejen1 seem sufficient to meet GNG/CORP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Calliopejen1's sources are enough to establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kanazawa Gakuin University

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

No sources WP:RS RayScript (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The corresponding article in Japanese Wikipedia has more information. Unfortunately that information is given without sources but we can presume that it should be possible to find some sources (quite unlikely the information is made-up) . —- Taku (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Disappointing to see a directory listing-style stub with just an official site created by an experienced editor, but there's no valid reason for deletion given. RayScript be advised that WP:RS is not itself a valid reason for deletion. When it comes to subjects other than biographies of living people, notability is based on the existence of sufficient sources to satisfy the criteria, not whether they're currently in the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution. No good reason for deletion given. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 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. – Joe (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Akkersdijk

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

Barely any references, sounds promotional, and now, solving a cube in 7 seconds isn't that big a deal. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 16:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World records. We do not include people for mere trivial feets of no consequence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to be notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of hospitals in the Philippines#Isabela per WP:ATD. – Joe (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel A. Roxas District Hospital

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

This an article about an extremely small non-notable hospital. All the references in it are dead links, primary, or both. I couldn't find anything about it in a WP:BEFORE either that would pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG, just a few trivial name drops in articles about Covid-19. Per prior consensus on non-notable hospitals as an alternative to deletion it could be redirected to List_of_hospitals_in_the_Philippines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way to small to have an article. Catfurball (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It does meet the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals/Tutorials#Notability criteria. Small doesn't mean not notable, so long at it is recognized in news and media sources. WP:HOS -- Talk to G Moore 13:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which news sources is it talked about in though? The refernces in the article are primary, not news coverage, and I don't see you providing any. So no it doesn't meet the notability standards, for the hospitals wikiproject or otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources I find are official hospital websites, government notices, and directory listings. Nothing in-depth or independent. Glendoremus (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of hospitals in the Philippines#Isabela: Barely found anything about the hospital. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of hospitals in the Philippines#Cagayan. czar 04:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ronald P. Guzman Medical Center

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

This hospital doesn't seem to be notable. All the references in it are either dead links (like 12 of them), to blogs (like 4 references), primary, or otherwise not usable. The only secondary in-depth link that might have worked for notability is about the CEO, what he's trying to do, and only name drops the hospital. So, I'm not seeing anything that passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG about it. As an alternative to straight deletion it could be redirected to List_of_hospitals_in_the_Philippines#Bataan prior consensus on non-notable hospitals. Although, I'll leave that up to others to decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of hospitals in the Philippines#Cagayan: Barely found anything about the hospital aside from being mentioned in [15], [16] and [17]. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Superastig. Article has prior issues, including promotional material and a directory-like content that was expunged by Hariboneagle927 JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:15, 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 redirect to List of Ace Attorney characters. – Joe (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Godot (Ace Attorney)

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

Much like the since redirected articles on Apollo Justice and Larry Butz from last week, this article fails WP:GNG. Though I’m not sure if this article about this character from the original trilogy of the Ace Attorney video game series would be worthy enough to be saved if it were to be improved through the paragraph about the character in the List of Ace Attorney characters may be good enough to describe this character though the article itself has been tagged since 2014 that its lead section may need to be rewritten. Pahiy (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Ace Attorney characters and salt. A bunch of trivial mentions in reviews of the game is not enough to show this character is individually notable, Godot belongs on the character list and that's all._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has a 'Reception' section. I think the nominator should explain why it is not sufficient. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article seems notable enough and actually has sources. At the very least Draftify the article as I can actually see improvement happening, unlike the prior two.(Oinkers42) (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The material is really too thin to meet GNG to me; minor mentions in reviews versus being the main subject of critical commentary, retrospectives, etc. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes GNG. This character has a decent reception section. Wikipedia has gone crazy recently with fiction deletions as far as I'm concerned.★Trekker (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to clearly pass GNG. Captain Galaxy 21:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Looking at the reviews used, they're really not particularly substantial discussion on the character. It's usually just a single sentence going over the core characters, which is not actual significant coverage. TTN (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - a more thorough look at the reception shows that it’s largely shallow observations and passing mentions cherry-picked from video game reviews. There’s no significant coverage here. So it’s better covered in the context of the games he appeared in, just like all the sourcing does. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirct Ignoring the reception section, there is literally one unique sourced thing, the inspiration for the character's name, the rest is sorta standard character stuff for a VG character (including VAs and plot appearances). And none of the receptions are directly about the character, but about the games, pulling what the reviews mention about the character. As such, there's not a lot of in-depth coverage about Godot specifically, this is really a patchwork of trying to make it happen. The reception and brief facts can stay in the list of AA characters without loss. --Masem (t) 14:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Ace Attorney characters - The "Reception" section of the article, which is the only portion that actually contains reliably sourced material, is very misleading as far as coverage of the actual character goes. All of the sources being used are reviews/information on the game, where the character is given one or two sentences at most. This is not substantial coverage, and does not clear the bar of the WP:GNG. Redirecting to the character list, where he is already covered, is a valid alternative to deletion, though. Rorshacma (talk) 23:35, 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 redirect to List of Ace Attorney characters#Franziska von Karma. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Franziska von Karma

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

Much like the since redirected articles on Apollo Justice and Larry Butz from last week, this article fails WP:GNG. Though I’m not sure if this article about this character from the original trilogy of the Ace Attorney video game series would be worthy enough to be saved if it were to be improved through the section about Franziska in the List of Ace Attorney characters may be good enough to describe her. Pahiy (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Ace Attorney characters and salt. Fails notability criteria pretty hard, with entirely trivial mentions. Definitely not suitable for a standalone article outside the list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a reception section here. The nom should present a critique of it if it has problems. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the reception is either trivial mentions from reviews of the game, or listicles like "top 20 game babes". There isn't anything that seems to be an indepth WP:SIGCOV of the character._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having a reception section doesn’t make it inherently notable. Pretty sure their broad comment about not meeting the GNG applies to that section too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete - I definitely echo the listicle sentiment. It's just three WatchMojo-tier junk articles and a few very minor mentions. These do not meet the criteria of significant coverage. TTN (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the references include interviews, trivial mentions (mostly as part of reviews of the video games and related media), a primary source (the Ace Attorney manga), and two Hot Video Game Babes™ listicles of which one has a very short entry for Franziska and the other only mentions her offhandedly. Maybe things will change if she continues to appear in any future games, but unfortunately I don't think she meets GNG as it stands unless more (print?) sources are found.--Alexandra^IDV 11:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the articles sourcing, reception section included, is extremely weak. It’s very clear someone tried to pad the reception section. The opening lines of the reception section notes how a publication called her a “series mainstay”. That’s it. That’s all that source said on her. That’s not reception, it’s just a vague statement of her appearing in games. The rest of it’s not better. Another calls her a standout because she whips people in the game. I mean, I know we all draw the line at different points, but I’m hard pressed to agree with anyone arguing that this is notable critical commentary here. We’ve got a whole article about the characters. If this is all that people can muster up, it belongs there. Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of hospitals in the Philippines#Laguna. – Joe (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calamba Doctors' Hospital

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

This hospital doesn't seem to be notable enough for an article. Since all the sources in the article are either primary, dead links, or basic business directories. I couldn't find any in-depth reliable secondary sources about it in a WP:BEFORE either. There doesn't even seem to be the usual WP:routine Covid-19 coverage a lot of hospitals are getting right now. Not that it would be usable for notability if there was any though. So, there's nothing that seems to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG about this hospital. As an alternative to deletion it could be redirected to List_of_hospitals_in_the_Philippines per prior consensus, but I'll leave it up to others to decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of hospitals in the Philippines#Laguna: Barely found anything about the hospital aside from having the country's largest renewable energy system. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 06:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luanda International School

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

This school doesn't seem notable. The article only cites a single primary source and a WP:BEFORE didn't turn up anything that would pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added text and secondary sources and updated the U.S. Government public domain content to the 2019-2020 fact sheet. Since the fact sheet is provided under the imprimatur the U.S. Government, I believe it is also a secondary source. Thus, the school meets WP:GNG. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know WP:NOR says government fact sheets are primary sources because its data, that is obtained by them. Not a synthsis of the data by someone who isn't connected to the people that gathered it. Which is what a secondary source. Plus, one source isn't enough anyway and all the others seem to be primary and not in-depth either. It should be pretty obvious that sources like expat-qoutes.com are not legitimate. So, your vote is without merit and the sources you added are not helpful to this being notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not clear what part of WP:NOR you are referring to that "says government fact sheets are primary sources because its data, that is obtained by them." However, even if the fact sheet is a primary source, according to WP:PRIMARY, A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. It also says: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Given the above policy description, and assuming you are correct that the U.S. Gov't public domain doc is primary, I have left some of the text of that document, and deleted several sections for which I could find no verification in other sources. I've added citations to secondary sources that verify most of the facts that remain.

My !vote to keep, though, is also based on my belief that approvals by national accreditation agencies constitutes a significant and substantial "reliable, independent, and verifiable secondary source". Accreditation represents a rigorous process of ensuring quality of a school's programs, faculty, accountability, and support for students' education. That, and inherent difficulties finding indexed publications for international sources, lead me to rely upon of accreditation by IB, NEASC, and the Council of International Schools as evidence of notability. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems your conflating what can be used in an article to cite basic facts with what can be used to determine notability. They are two different standards. For instance you can cite Twitter for basic facts in an article, but you can't use a tweet an AfD discussion as way to claim something is notable. Same goes for government fact sheets. Its fine to cite them in articles, they don't for in AfDs for notability though. You don't even have to take it that level though. As they fail the whole "in-depth coverage" thing anyway. Although I will add that WP:Primary says "Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources." In no can the things listed that make a secondary source secondary be applied to government fact sheets. Adamant1 (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, I do understand the difference between standards required for notability and what is acceptable to verify facts in an article. We differ, however in whether a school's adoption of the IB curriculum and its accreditation by New England Association of Schools and Colleges are evidence of notability. In fact, it is the only school in Angola accredited by NEASC. That accreditation represents rigorous examination by a team of accreditors who visit the school and check adherence to standards of excellence in educational practices, including curriculum, finances, faculty credentials, facilities, governance, student activities, and institutional compliance with legal responsibilities. In short, the IB curriculum and the NEASC accreditation are notable, as I wrote above. I have served on accreditation team site visits. We didn't give anyone an "easy pass", and in one case withheld accreditation because faculty revealed the IT department had abruptly and intentionally censored information that could be accessed on the school's internet. The school was out of compliance with the standard ensuring freedom of inquiry. Faculty were hopping mad, and the president of the college claimed he didn't know about it. That's the kind of situation that accreditation is designed to remediate: accredition is not automatic. But I digress. I understand your position, I just disagree. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Obviously people will have their own interpretation of the notability guidelines sometimes. I only responded since this is suppose to be a discussion after all. Don't take it as me being argumentative or anything like that though, because I respect your opinion. Even if I disagree with you. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Grand'mere Eugene has added sources that demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY thanks to Grand'mere Eugene's sources and improvement. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:53, 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. – Joe (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Hall (snooker player)

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

Declined PROD with addition of one dodgy reference. No indication that this player ever took up a tour place if they were offered one.

The article makes claims about the player making the fifth round of qualifying at the 2004 World Snooker Championship, where they were in the first qualifying round. Doesn't pass WP:GNG, and I don't see how they are particularly notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is nothing more than dirty tricks being played by Lee Vilenski, which I have come to expect after our little disagreement here [18]. He mentions that the source added is 'dodgy', but neglects to inform us that this same source has been cited in many other snooker-related articles, without Lee Vilenski ever challenging its validity. The one and only occasion on which he has done so is when the article in question is one I have created.

At first, it seems as if Lee has a good point; a cursory glance at the plethora of snooker articles we allow without question reveals that he does not. David Hall may only have spent a year as a professional, and never won a match, and he may only have been ranked 96th in the world - so if he is not notable, why do we have articles for Riley Parsons and Amine Amiri, for example? You see, this is not about the notability of an individual.

Had CueTracker, the best snooker results and statistics archive in the world, not been blacklisted three years ago, he would have been able to see for himself the brief - but real - career of David Hall. CueTracker was blacklisted, of course; I wonder who vociferously advocated for that decision? None other than Lee Vilenski. Although we are active members of the same small Wikiproject, he has never had anything to do with me on Wikipedia - that is, until the incident I refer to above. I find this very strange indeed. What is also strange is that the deletion discussion I have referred to was the second AfD for that particular article; it had been deleted in a prior AfD, but restored by Lee Vilenski for no reason whatsoever. The user who had created the article was Lee Vilenski. I am beginning to see a pattern of corruption, a user taking full advantage of the administrator status he was granted by common consent - abusing that status for his own benefit and for that alone.

I created the article David Hall, and I will defend to the hilt my decision to do so - but, were I an administrator, I wouldn't dream of going against the consensus reached in an AfD, if my peers agreed that I had been wrong. Humility goes a long way. At this rate, Lee Vilenski is not going to travel very far. Montgomery15 (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - outside of someone telling me you partook in that AfD which wasn't really that big of a deal I have no idea about your previous edits. Did we have a disagreement at that AfD? I'm pretty sure I did a !vote, and then never returned to the page. I haven't used any administrative powers at all and the AfD is based on my WP:BEFORE search finding no evidence of the player being professional, which is the bare minimum for our SNG (and finding just one source shows that they also do not meet GNG). Also, other RS that publish the world rankings for 2004/05 don't mention this player at all, let alone as high as 96th! [19], [20], [21] etc. The rest, quite frankly borders on a personal attack, and I suggest you redact. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I stand by what I wrote, because I believe it to be the truth. 'Best wishes', Montgomery15 (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that I haven't been involved in any blacklisting on any webpage, least of all cuetracker (the latest discussion is here where I had barely been a member for a few days) and dates back to 2008. Could you point me into the direction of what I might have done to abuse the administrative toolset. As I've stated before I haven't used the tools. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already have - the Johnathan Bagley article was deleted after an AfD, but for whatever reason, you - the author of the article - took it upon yourself to undelete it. This place is just about as democratic as any in the world, so why would somebody in your position see fit to go against a democratic decision, knowing beyond any reasonable doubt - as you did - that the article had no place here? Montgomery15 (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG calls for multiple sources. Thus one source can never pass GNG on its own. Wikipedia should not be including articles just because they are included in one database somewhere, we need multiple sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've checked NewsBank and the British Newspaper Archive and not found any significant coverage of Hall. I believe that there were both professionals and amateurs taking part in the 2004 World Championship. The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker: The Complete Record & History (2004) says Hall reached the 8th qualifying round in 2004, but their numbering is often out of line with other sources as they tend to include "pre-qualifying" in counting rounds. The Complete International Directory of Snooker Players – 1927 to 2018 says he entered at the "last 272" stage and lost in the "last 144" round in 2004. The latter source has him as "unranked" from 2002 to 2005. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete considering the sole argument for deletion (repeated twice) falls afoul of notability is not inherited. – Joe (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beenish Chohan

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

Fails WP:NMODEL no news of her in news website but only passing mention such as she performed Umrah with family. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the actress have worked in various serials of Pakistan and is one of the senior actresses.Lillyput4455 (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I tried to find some native sources but failed. There's hardly anything in Urdu about her and none of the available sources ascertain her notability. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The actress is currently appearing in serial Tarap, and has appeared in many notable serials namely Yeh Zindagi Hai and Mera Saaein series. - Lillyput4455 (^talk) 17:03 , 2 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dexter's Laboratory episodes#Season 1 (1996–97). In general but especially for uncontroversial topics, please attempt to redirect/merge (or another alternative) before nominating for deletion, which is a last resort. czar 04:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dial M for Monkey: Magmanamus

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

Information and reception towards this particular episode fails WP:TVSERIES and WP:GNG aside from TV show listings and fan wikis. Three sources are only stated, one sourcing the episode itself, and two others sourcing IMDB, which is not reliable for reception. Page is also mostly filled with episode plot summary. lullabying (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dexter's Laboratory episodes. Regardless, this article is nothing more than a plot summary (and Wikipedia articles shouldn't be summary only descriptions of works). Pahiy (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dexter's Laboratory episodes - The episode is not independently notable, and only used IMDB as sources, but a valid Redirect target exists. Rorshacma (talk) 17:39, 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 List of Dexter's Laboratory episodes#Season 1 (1996–97). In general but especially for uncontroversial topics, please attempt to redirect/merge (or another alternative) before nominating for deletion, which is a last resort. czar 04:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeeDeemensional

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

Information and reception towards this particular episode fails WP:TVSERIES and WP:GNG aside from TV show listings and fan wikis. Three sources are only stated, one sourcing the episode itself, and two others sourcing IMDB, which is not reliable for reception. Page is also mostly filled with episode plot summary. lullabying (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dexter's Laboratory episodes. Regardless, this article is nothing more than a plot summary (and Wikipedia articles shouldn't be summary only descriptions of works). Pahiy (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dexter's Laboratory episodes - The episode is not independently notable, and only used IMDB as sources, but a valid Redirect target exists. Rorshacma (talk) 17:39, 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 List of Dexter's Laboratory episodes#Season 1 (1996–97). In general but especially for uncontroversial topics, please attempt to redirect/merge (or another alternative) before nominating for deletion, which is a last resort. czar 04:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maternal Combat

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

Information and reception towards this particular episode fails WP:TVSERIES and WP:GNG aside from TV show listings and fan wikis. Three sources are only stated, one sourcing the episode itself, and two others sourcing IMDB, which is not reliable for reception. Page is also mostly filled with episode plot summary. lullabying (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only cites IMDb, which by consensus is generally not reliable. A a s i m 00:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dexter's Laboratory episodes, especially given Pahiy's !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeeDeemensional. Presumably we'd want a consistent result for the articles in this series. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dexter's Laboratory episodes - The episode is not independently notable, and the only sources being used are IMDB, but a valid redirect target exists. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esabet Al-Doctor Omar

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

Non notable film, nothing found to support it's notability claim in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites and youtube videos. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an article without sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM Spiderone 13:53, 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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chancery Lane (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary dab. The street in London has an article. The others are not even mentioned in the respective blue links. The tub station is a PTM and handled by a hatnote. MB 15:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MB 15:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:TWODABS at best, but not even there yet. BD2412 T 17:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 2dabs. Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the hatnote does all that is needed. PamD 10:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A disambiguation page is not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:36, 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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essex Road (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary dab. There road in London is the only one with an article. The other listed roads aren't even listed in the respective bluelinks. The rail station article is a PTM. MB 15:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MB 15:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 2dabs. Boleyn (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the hatnote does the job nicely. PamD 10:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A disambiguation page is not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:37, 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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde Park Gate (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary dab page. The London street the only one with an article, the two others aren't even mentioned in the respective bluelinks. MB 15:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article. Aravindhan Ravikumar (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently redirects to a page that isn't a dab, so misleading. Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Boleyn: I have restored the page to the version it was at when the AfD was applied (ie a disambiguation page). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Enwiki has content about only one "Hyde Park Gate", so the term is not ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatcom Peace & Justice Center

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems like a pretty clear WP:NORG fail, but it's been here since 2007 so perhaps there is something out there I haven't found. Previous AfD in 2011 closed as no consensus. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, no sources on them except themselves which means the article has no content except self-description. Also I could not find any in a search. Also fails SNG for orgs. North8000 (talk) 00:03, 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Daniels

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage, just local coverage, mainly about his family tragedy) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has only played in semi-pro Irish leagues). Can be restored if/when he makes his professional debut. Giant Snowman 09:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Too weak on GNG to pass in my opinion, kinda routine, however as he is signed to a League One club I feel this would be better served in moving to draft space. Govvy (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a pre-existing draft which pre-dates the mainspace article - User:GiantSnowman/Josh Daniels. Giant Snowman 11:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This one seems a like it has a bit more, however shouldn't you perform a speedy WP:CSD#A10 then? Govvy (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the coverage cited in the article about his family tragedy is indeed local - but it's also easy to find national coverage such at this. There's also a lot of ongoing coverage of his career, allowing for an article to be written - which is not surprising with over 140 top-tier appearances in 8 seasons for a 24-year old! There's also significant coverage about his transfer to Shrewsbury inclusing significant in-depth features such at this. Nfitz (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please find me some stuff which isn't a) routine transfer news and/or b) from the local paper... Giant Snowman 10:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Belfast Telegraph article is neither routine nor local. Not that there's anything wrong with local - and the Shropshire Star piece is significant and in-depth. I think you are splitting hairs on this one. Nfitz (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the BT piece is decent. On its own - not enough IMHO. Giant Snowman 11:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough reliable sources. --2A00:23C5:F218:7A00:60B3:29EA:A0CE:C140 (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suspicious of this IP editor ... their only other two edits (the same day), was to call someone a whore, and falsely report someone else as dead. Can someone look into? Nfitz (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: The IP has only made 9 edits, and some dubious ones at that. I don't really think their vote should count. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough substantial coverage to pass GNG Spiderone 09:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite User:GiantSnowman's comments above, I'm find a lot of decent coverage before their transfer to England, and I've added 3 more good references to the article. Can you look again User:Spiderone - and what's with the vandalizing IP editor's vote above? Nfitz (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked them and they seem like fairly routine local newspaper pieces. I'm still leaning towards delete here Spiderone 11:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not really seeing GNG here either, a lot of the sources are either local or routine transfer talk, but some have been added recently, so no harm in extending for another week for further disucssion, but unless more keep votes come in, I would close as delete with the discussion in its current state.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was more in-depth coverage this week, not related to the transfer, which compared him positively to Daniel Udoh, who featured in 33 matches last season, and (tied) for number 2 on the team for goals. He also played for Shrewsbury on the 11th, scoring in a pre-season friendly against Bala Town F.C.. With this new reference (the first one in the comment), I think GNG has been met, and I'll add it tot he article. I think we should apply WP:NORUSH to this. Alternatively, the article should be moved to Draft - as surely, playing on a 3rd tier team, an article will be created for him soon. Nfitz (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to allow discussion of recently proffered sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft per arguments above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draft - there is decent coverage of him but possibly not enough for GNG. He may well make his debut on Saturday so deletion seems unproductive. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Tap

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

No sources provided to show how he meets notability guidelines. He appears to only be known as a backing guitarist to two more notable artists as part of their touring bands. only (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. only (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only listed as present in the credits of works by a few other people and has no independent coverage as a performer or businessman in his own right. The same is true of his record label. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:00, 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 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 13:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandar Soundarrajan

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

Unremarkable actor with no evidence of satisfying either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. The added sources are trivial, primary and mention him in passing. The only film where he played the lead role is Vengayam. The article has a list of television shows done by him but I could not find any sources to verify that claim. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 08:27, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Clear consensus that the subject passes WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) Nsk92 (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ujjwal Maulik

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

No demonstrated notability, only two references to a associates and citation database. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With a h-index of 48 (gooogle scholar) he passes WP:NACADEMIC(1). He possibly also passes other criteria or GNG.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello! My apologies if it is not customary to reply to comments on deletion discussions. From what I understood h-index alone cannot constitute a metric to determining notability. I did some quick research (in English) and found nothing in multiple reputable sources to determine significance or notability. Once again sorry if this comment is out of place! Nearlyevil665 (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  You can comment, all is good. Agreed, h-index does require some assessment for more borderline cases, however with such a high h-index which includes publications cited over a thousand times he easily meets NACADEMIC(1). He is also a full professor and formerly head of computer science department and a fellow in various societies.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Beyond the pass of WP:PROF#C1 indicated above, being an IEEE Fellow [22] is an immediate pass of WP:PROF#C3, given within the guideline as an explicit example of a fellowship that passes that criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs (further) cleanup, but it's a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and C3. XOR'easter (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Academic h-index of 48 and IEEE felllow--Iockyrice (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, IEEE fellow meets WP:NPROF. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear keep under WP:PROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Time to eat the crow and admit I was wrong. Upon further inspection the subject does seem to pass notability criteria. That being said, the article needs major clean-up efforts to look encyclopedic. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buket Uzuner

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

Biography of an author that doesn't seem to meet notability criteria. Sources are either promotional or links to personal websites. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes NAUTHOR. Uzuner is taught at Turkish schools, and her work is analyzed in scholarship such as: [23], [24], [25].--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For "an author that doesn't seem to meet notability criteria" there are a surprising number of papers about her work on Google scholar. I don't read Turkish, so can't evaluate them individually, but unless someone who can explains why they should be discounted, I presume she's notable. pburka (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has major issues but it seems that the subject is notable. The page can be kept in my opinion. Keivan.f^Talk 22:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Especially as the subject has received wide coverage. NavjotSR (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would like to herein rescind the nomination of said article for deletion. My bad on missing out some notable references that clearly establish notability. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 18:45, 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. – Joe (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don Colbert

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

Not one source. Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was just thinking the same thing. I can't find any reliable source for him, let alone enough to qualify an article. I wonder if it's snowy enough for maybe even an A7 speedy? ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 13:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability, ~~and almost trumpy hair.~~ -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy, I admire your work on Wikipedia, but rude comments about the subject's physical appearance have no place in a deletion discussion. --Krelnik (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your work too, but only now have discovered your name is Krelnik!! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 05:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment come on now Slatersteven, "not one source"? There are three NYTimes articles linked in the article, and even a casual look on newspapers.com for instance comes up with lots of articles about him. Here's one but I see them in papers all over the country, and not just on the religion pages. Now admittedly, most of these articles are tied around whatever book hew as promoting at the time, but that's part of this guy's business. I vehemently disagree this is a SNOW situation, you guys need to put aside your distaste for this guy's business and actually do a real WP:BEFORE, not just a casual Google. I don't like what this guy's selling either, but he's out there in the world and is notable. --Krelnik (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No inline citations, and a one sentence mention a source does not make.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit SNOW or an A7 is jumping the gun, but there's barely any coverage about this guy, let alone enough (or really, any) reliable sourcesto qualify an article. Plus, all of his existence seems to be only in the US; I'd never heard of him over here in Australia before today. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 14:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now admittedly, most of these articles are tied around whatever book hew as promoting at the time, but that's part of this guy's business. His sales promotion tactics can not be considered appropriate references, or in themselves as being notable.Ali Beatriz (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should have been deleted as an advert when first created, and there are vanishingly few sources from which to make it anything else. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are public service reasons for having out-of-universe encyclopaedia entries for quacks. The three different NYT articles should indicate some level of notability. GPinkerton (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They all literally say "and he has published this book". That is trivial coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not aware of any WP policy that would mean we should keep an article on a non-notable, fringe physician based on "public service reasons". Any coverage is about his books (they're also all in short promotional bursts), there's no reliable sources about him personally. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 14:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found two better sources with mere minutes of work on newspapers.com and have added them to the article. --Krelnik (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear violation of our guidelines on fringe academics. Just because coverage is in the NYT does not mean it is automatically substantial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Struggle to see how he's notable and how he doesn't fail WP:FRINGE. The 'best' references are a few, old articles from the New York Times (the first one of which is only a mention of a book), whilst other claimed references are unverifiable including from such 'highly prestigious medical publications' as The Readers Digest, and the far from unbiased Charisma. Ali Beatriz (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a couple of reliable sources (added to the article), but they're weak sources that only mention him in addition to a number of other sources about faith-based diets. They're also from 2005 and 2008, which lends doubt to his notability. Gbear605 (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing beyond brief interviews and routine coverage - not notable. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm very disappointed in the ability of others to find sources. Do none of you use anything other than Google? Are you aware of the Wikipedia Library? I have added two substantial newspaper sources to it that I think show notability, added some more facts. This article still has problems, and yes this guy is not the most notable physician in the world, but he's sold thousands of books and I don't think it should be deleted. People need to keep their personal opinions on the subjects out of notability discussions. I'm not super fond of this guy's message myself, but I was able to find sources with a few minutes work. --Krelnik (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

but he's sold thousands of books .. which, in itself, is not sufficiently notable for an article.Ali Beatriz (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are sources, but I'm not really finding much as far as sources about the subject in particular. It seems to be much more along the line of speaking of wild and crazy diets, check out what this Jesus-guy says. That would be cool, if his diet was independently notable, but it doesn't seem to be, and check out this wild and crazy Jesus-guy diet doesn't really help us write a biography. GMG^talk 16:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also (edit conflict) @Krelnik: It doesn't necessarily help things unless you indicate what sources you've found that others haven't. GMG ^talk 16:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I linked one above, and I put two better ones in the darn article. Another thing everyone here (except Gbear605, thank you) seems to be forgetting - aren't we here to improve the encyclopedia? --Krelnik (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, yeah. But sources like the one you link to above aren't terribly useful. As I said, they're much more about "check out this kooky Jesus diet" and not really about the subject of the article in a way that helps us write an article that's more than a few sentences. GMG ^talk 01:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, is this like..."a thing"...where guys show up to his office so he can put a speaker up to their balls to make them more virile? That seems...oddly specific... GMG ^talk 01:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If these sources were so easy to find why has it taken an AFD for users to bother to add them?Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

aren't we here to improve the encyclopedia? .. yes, and with respect, the removal of chaff is a legitimate improvement process. This is one reason why both WP:Notability and WP:Articles for deletion exist.Ali Beatriz (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but WP:BEFORE also exists and it doesn't mean do a quick Google search that only goes to page 2. It means REALLY look for sources as if you wanted to write the article yourself. --Krelnik (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can sources to demonstrate notability be found if they don't exist due to a lack of notability?Ali Beatriz (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although sources have been added to the article, everything I can find is either a passing mention or an interview with no analysis. It's not possible to write a neutral article on the topic using existing sources. –dlthewave ☎ 17:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:GreenMeansGo. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on his notability as an author, WorldCat indicates that his writing output includes "217 works in 852 publications in 11 languages and 11,994 library holdings". Let me translate that for you - there are nearly 12,000 copies of his various books sitting in libraries right now, and that's just the ones that WorldCat knows about (not all libraries participate in WorldCat). His top held book is in 864 known libraries worldwide, he has several other books that are held in more than 500 libraries. Normally on an author this widely held I'd build a Works section and list his top 4 or 5 books in the article, but as everyone here has made up their mind I'm not going to bother. --Krelnik (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was the article originally just SEO spam?

Dr. Colbert has been offering bloggers cash and a free dinner if they write about his website. [26] & someone trying to promote Dr. Colbert’s online store via means that certainly violate journalistic ethics [27]

Note, the creator of the article, back in 2009, has made no other contributions.Ali Beatriz (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was almost certainly originally SEO spam. However, if Colbert is notable, the article should not be deleted regardless of the original reason for the article to be created. The reverse also holds, that it should be deleted if Colbert is not notable. Gbear605 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the agreement of my suspicions. I maintain the article should be deleted on grounds of lack of notability. The dodgy practice of SEO spam and the COI creation of the article can only increase the questionability, but also the lack of any substantial expansion of article and the struggle to find decent references after 11 years highlights the lack of notability.Ali Beatriz (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the author info on that second link, then look at my user page. --Krelnik (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain rather than asking others to follow clues?Ali Beatriz (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You've just started on Wikipedia this month, why are you so interested in this discussion? --Krelnik (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - that's hardly constructive is it?
Why are you so interested in this discussion? - is there any reason I should not be interested? A quick review of [28] does not find any policy where such justification is required.
May I suggest a review by you of [29] &[30]

Ali Beatriz (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't want to follow a chain of links, the author of the second link is Krelnik. See the notice on Talk:Tim Farley. Gbear605 (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Unless I missed something did Krelnik not declare his interest when supporting keeping the article?Ali Beatriz (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Beatriz, as far as I know, Krelnik did not declare any previous connection. However, he's under no requirement to by Wikipedia guidelines, since I don't believe that he is breaking WP:COI. Gbear605 (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for further clarification. I would not go as far as to suggest this is disingenuous, but it's certainly not being fully open. However, it does smack of hypocrisy that the same person challenged the reason for my interest.Ali Beatriz (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This person's notability and my documentation of their alleged business practices have nothing to do with each other. Also, for those who are having trouble understanding - my blog post was a negative opinion about Colbert's business but I voted keep here. Those are kind of opposite things. --Krelnik (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI is not just bias in favor of or against the article, but I still don't think it applies here. Having written one blog post about Colbert six years ago does not make an external relationship, although it does suggest that you should be careful, which it seems that Krelnik has been. Gbear605 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oral Roberts University had a medical school? That's astonishing. Softlavender (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as there are some sources out there that speak about him. Antonio Me Martin (I hate having to do write this on every deletion vote but have to, so, here, talk to me) 11:50, 26 August, 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid

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

Can't see how this individual passes WP:PROF, and certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ~~No opinion as yet,~~ but her CV may be useful for those interested in whether her publications qualify her for WP:NAUTHOR. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found one review of her book Intellectual Property at the Workplace (ISBN 9789654421072):
- Factor, Michael (November 2014). "Of patents and prejudice: IP and innovation at work". Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 9 (11): 944–947. doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpu161. ISSN 1747-1532.

Her most-cited article (36 hits on Google Scholar) is Yanisky-Ravid, Shlomit (2017). "Generating Rembrandt: Artificial Intelligence, Accountability and Copyright—The Human-Like Workers Are Already Here—A New Model". Michigan State Law Review. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2957722. ISSN 1556-5068. SSRN 2957722.

Law is a very high citation field, so 36 hits is not especially impressive. "Generating Rembrandt" apparently was named a "visionary article in intellectual property law", but I'm not really sure what that is since there doesn't appear to be independent coverage of it. I found nothing special on Westlaw that's not free to access elsewhere. I think WP:NAUTHOR is the most viable criterion and I'm not seeing enough coverage to meet it. Perhaps there are other sources in Hebrew, and I'd be more than willing to reconsider my vote if that's the case. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at and responded to DEgnel's points below. My !vote remains unchanged. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(I corrected the link below to Katherine B. Forrest.) The point about restricting attention to a sub-field does not convince me. You can make anyone seem important by narrowing your field of view. Our standards focus on significance on the field broadly construed, not in a specific research area. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced by the single Supreme Court of Israel citation. Academic papers are often cited by courts—especially by major appellate courts. I am not convinced that the award given by the Michigan State Law review is a major enough award to indicate broad significance in the field of law, and it is certainly not enough for WP:ANYBIO. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree as to scholarly impact in general. Citation count on Google Scholar lists her highest cited paper as 36 cites. Not sufficient to indicate broad importance in a high-citation field. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the additional sources mentioned below are primary. I cannot evaluate the ones in Hebrew as I do not read that language. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Perhaps TOOSOON. She is a professor at Law at Fordham, and has published a number of articles that come up in Google Scholar but none of them seem to have a lot of cites. Apart from that, I can't really see any RS or interviews that substantiate her.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and make major improvements. @Onel5969 and AleatoryPonderings:

As a new Wikipedia contributor, I feel like I have failed to create a page that describes the importance of her and her work accurately enough. As a result, I believe, one might conclude that she doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Here are my arguments for why she does:

WP:PROF - Both the discussion and the article are not focusing the field of research that makes her unique. Law (IP, Privacy, Labour) facing the futures (and present) challenges of advanced technology (AI, cyberspace, blockchain). Judge Katherine B. Forrest Judge named her "he foremost thinker of AI and copyright", for her research in the field.Fordham Prof. Page Yale Prof. Page.
1. Following that, I believe that her citation count should be looked at from a law and advanced tech POV, and compared to such papers, as opposed to measure citation count against classic Law papers. A quick search on google scholar can help reassess.
2. Other relevant metrics should be her paper journal rankings and awards (e.g. Generating Rembrandt, Michigan State Law Award) and the fact that her paper was cited by the Israeli Supreme Court Verdict Article
WP:AUTHOR - Sections 1 "important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and especially 2 "a significant new concept, theory, or technique.", I think are made clear by the previous paragraph and the provided sources.
WP:GNG and WP:BIO - More sources can help (and will be provided below). However, I think that even currently the sources are reliable, intellectually independent, and indeed are significant coverage.

I hereby call for help to improve this page. I have done my reading and will definitely work on it. In order to be improved, this page must to be kept. Lastly, some additional sources. For this article to be improved, it needs some more sources.

Yale Prof. Page - isn't referenced in the article.
Ono Academic College Prof. Page - As her current academic institute, not even mentioned.
Recent article about privacy and Covid-19 (From Ynet)
Podcast about AI and IP (english)
Article about privacy in workplace (From Calcalist)

DEgnel (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AleatoryPonderings, please untangle your replies from DEgnel's comment. It is hard to follow (see WP:TPO).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any evidence of notability. It would also be interesting to know if the creator has a WP:COI with the subject. Number 5 7 10:40, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T.K.V._Rajan

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/T.K.V. Rajan

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

This article came up on the community channel as needing clean-up for grammar, which I have done, essentially trimming it down to a quarter of its initial volume for unsourced claims, embellishment and obvious puffery. With all those removed, it feels like the person lacks notability and significance in their field of work and is subject to deletion. Most likely was created back in 2017 for promotional purposes as the untrimmed version had a lot of references to names of DVDs, exhibitions and other self-serving mentions.

Nearlyevil665 (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; zero evidence of any notability Spiderone 08:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most references for him are passing mentions at best. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. – Joe (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlo Yelizarov

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

A non-notable businessman, a cofounder of a 2018 startup Younk that is already forgotten by RS, and the startup even was not very notable in 2018 ([31] has no mention of Yelizarov, [32] only lists him as a cofounder of many listed startups). Article looks like a resume and not an encyclopedic entity. P. S. The creator is likely an undeclared paid editor, Special:CentralAuth/ОШ = Special:CentralAuth/GGFox = Special:CentralAuth/Servaz T. Wikisaurus (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 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. czar 04:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vykunta Raju

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

This looks like a resume for a subject who does not meet either WP:BASIC or WP:NPROF, but I'm not sure. He has some publications (e.g., [33]). The article also says he's on the editorial board of Pediatrics and Therapeutics: Current Research, which not appear to have an ISSN per [34]. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

11:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of meeting any of the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 18:05, 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. czar 04:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Academia Izturis

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

Non-notable company. Happens to be run by two former professional baseball players, which does not make the company itself notable. Content can me merged. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

11:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:GNG. I found articles in El Impulso but they do not list an author and I couldn't find a masthead on the site. Therefore, I consider it unreliable. I disagree with a merge because I'm unsure which brother should get the redirect and there's no sourced material to transfer. Z1720 (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm fine with a deletion without merge; while content could be merged, lack of proper sourcing obviates that. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:34, 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. czar 04:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

River City Star

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

Advertisement for a non-notable cruise on the Missouri River. Coverage is either not about the cruise ([35]) or promo for the cruise ([36]). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

11:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G11. Why bring obvious adverts to AfD? Java Hurricane 12:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has existed since 2006, so I thought more thorough consideration was warranted. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On going a little deeper, I found that the advertising was introduced later by a promotional SPA. I have removed the spam and withdrawn the G11 tag. Java Hurricane 12:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On doing a BEFORE search, I found no sigcov that would take this past the GNG. So, Delete. Java Hurricane 13:39, 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. czar 04:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosasen

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

The article has existed for 14 years yet the only source is the website of the subject. Wikipedia is not a lightly annocated directory to all websites. A search for additional sourcing turned up nothing substantial John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

11:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. A spammy page about a company with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NCORP by miles. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all we know this article could have been made for advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Town & Country Surf Designs

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

An article from 2006 which doesn't seem to have ever had anything in the realm of reliable sourcing. Unfortunately, all of my BEFORE attempts either pulled up press releases, name-drops, and the like (Strings: "Town & Country Surf Designs", "T&C Surf Designs") or outright irrelevant stuff (String: "Town & Country" Surf Designs). It is possible the games bearing the name are notable, but if they are it wouldn't have any bearing on the company itself and they would need individual articles. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 21:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

11:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant advertising. Doesn't meet WP:COMPANY. - Funky Snack (Talk) 11:28, 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. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan James (radio)

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

Although a national radio presenter, there's no evidence he is now on any radio station. The subject just about meets WP:GNG. Still potential for the article. - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately a common name, so I may be missing something, but I'm not able to find any in-depth independent coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can find him on a few radio schedules and articles but nothing majorly "independent". As I mentioned in the AfD, just because someone is on national radio does't make them "notable". However, if there are sources elsewhere which mentions his work, there must be potential. I mean he's worked with some big names (according to his article) and having checked the likes of Duncan Barkes and James Whale, these stations do/did exist and his name is mentioned in sources relating to these stations. This is why I think there's potential making the AfD questionable. I can't see why the article would have been allowed to stay up for so long if his notability didn't exist. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Presenter on national stations and several articles and schedules mentioning him. Even if there's "no evidence" that he's on radio anymore, he's still been part of broadcasting. You can't re-write something that's already happened. 2A00:23C7:3104:2900:482F:195F:40E2:285A (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that notability is not temporary, so the nominator really shouldn't have bothered including that bit. The issue here is finding in-depth coverage of the subject in independent sources to show that, regardless of current/past jobs, there's enough to satisfy WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to withdraw my nomination to allow more time to fiond information on the subject as I strongly believe there's potential and currently enough (just about) to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. I agree with those who say there are quite a few broadcasters and DJs with this name, but looking at his article, he is linked with a few presenters such as Duncan Barkes, Tommy Boyd and Iain Dale. - Funky Snack (Talk) 18:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since there are two delete !voters (including me) it can't be withdrawn. You can amend your !vote from the implied "delete" to something else if you've changed your mind. The only purpose of my comment was to remove "he's not currently on the radio" from one of the deletion rationales because arguing against that doesn't argue against the real reasons for deletion, which are based in WP:SIGCOV IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about him. Not to mention a couple of people involved in radio also bear that name. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like others, I have been unable to find any significant coverage at all. Does not meet notability standards under GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birbal (actor)

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

Non notable actor having played only small roles. Google search does not show in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: prisoner with a half-cut mustache, drug addict and informer may not qualify as significant roles per WP:NACTOR. There's seems to be no WP:SIGCOV either. Ab207 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 08:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 10:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard_Landauer

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bernhard Landauer

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

The sources are either not independent or not identified particularly well Vfbsilva (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Asked to relist to provide time to find sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 09:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, Gerda Arendt did some nice work with the article, expanding and adding references. --Tone 11:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources seem to demonstrate notability now. Thanks Gerda Arendt. Deus et lex (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as multiple reliable sources have been added to the article to show a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:41, 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 11:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charly's School

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS // Timothy :: talk 08:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom; I don't see a case for GNG here. One of the citations is the school's website. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:02, 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 redirect to Richard Scott, 10th Duke of Buccleuch. Tone 11:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Scott, Duchess of Buccleuch (born 1954)

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

I see no indication that the subject of this article is notable according to WP:GNG and WP:BASIC standards. The article looks like a simple genealogical entry, yet that is not what Wikipedia is for; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Googling the duchess has revealed no significant coverage as required by WP:SIGCOV. I fail to see why Wikipedia should have a standalone article about her. Surtsicna (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a good reference, as part of an article about other duchesses. It is adequately in depth. Dismore, Jane (2014-08-31). "Duchess originals: Meet the commoners who married into aristocracy". Mail Online. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain, I encountered the same article. An article passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG if the topic is significantly covered in reliable sources, however. The Daily Mail has been on the list of deprecated sources since 2017. See WP:DAILYMAIL: "The Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." Surtsicna (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Buccleuch’s are an integral part of the British aristocracy which is still very important in that Country even in the 21st century, see Nobility. Devokewater (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but where is the significant coverage of this woman? Surtsicna (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see some more input here. A possible alternative is a redirect to her husband Richard Scott, 10th Duke of Buccleuch.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 08:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DELREASON 8: Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth). I conducted a basic search for WP:RELIABLE sources that provide WP:Significant coverage; I found no such sources. I see no reason for a redirect after having looked at the pages that link to her (no point in having a redirect if the target of the redirect, i.e. her husband, is also linked on the same page), especially considering the unwieldy title. TompaDompa (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard Scott, 10th Duke of Buccleuch: The Dukedom of Buccleuch is an extant peerage and the Montagu Douglas Scott family is a revered one in Scotland, with connections to the British royal family through Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, so deleting seems a bit extreme. In the future, if the Duchess recieves noteworthy coverage then the redirect can be removed and the article can be further developed. TheRedDomitor (talk) 03:20, 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 Merge. I'm going to do a joint close of this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colegio Español (Bata), so see there for details. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio Español Don Bosco

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS // Timothy :: talk 08:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Colegio Español (Bata) to somewhere. There is an es.wiki page I just linked. This also has a high school. This source has a bit on the Spanish international system. es.wiki does have a International Spanish Academies page (which would be a good merge target), but I can't see an equivelant on en.wiki.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eostrix: I wouldn't mind if the ESwiki "International_Spanish_Academies International Spanish Academies" was translated into English WhisperToMe (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Eostrix, WhisperToMe, I could see International Spanish Academies being created and these articles being incorporated and redirected. My Spanish is not good enough to do it though. I think that would be a notable article. The schools themselves as stand alone articles are not notable. // Timothy :: talk 16:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge. Once there's enough secondary source material on a particular school it can be re-split. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:14, 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. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vahdam Teas

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 08:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of this page does not intend to promote or publicize the entity or product by any means. Every word in the content is absolutely true and authentic and backed by articles published. There is no promotional material at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naman2685 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell why you think this it is notable, when there is a billion tea companies, they are countless. What makes this special? scope_creep^Talk 00:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Being a chai-nnoisseur, I admit I hadn't heard of this brand. But I looked it up and the only proper, independent and reliable source I can find is this recent Forbes story, where a note at the bottom says it appears in the print edition, which I know is held to a higher standard and fact-checking than a stray online story. This Economic Times story introduces it as "premium tea brand" and says it's present in US and Europe, but is probably from a press release? so a primary source?? There are many other similar stories, but nothing approaching the depth of the Forbes one. More experienced editors in this field need to take a call, but this might possibly be a case of WP:TOOSOON. If they think Forbes source is enough, along with funding stories etc., it may well be kept. What the company is doing looks interesting, and if gets deleted now, I think months or a year or two down the line, I see no reason why it wouldn't get an article after more quality sources have reported on it independently. (No prejudice agains its good-faith creation). MaysinFourty (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is deprecated. The second ref company announcements fails WP:CORPDEPTH such as standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such a such as of a capital transaction, such as raised capital scope_creep^Talk 07:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the references fail to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, never mind WP:ORGIND explicitly. scope_creep^Talk 07:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks @Scoop Creep for your clarifications on this. The point I want to make here is that within the span of 5 years the company has done some great notable works and achievements which I will share here, and in context to WP:CORPDEPTH also, even though there are countless tea companies.

1. On 15th January 2020, VAHDAM®️ was awarded the ‘Global SMB of the Year’ at the ‘Amazon Smbhav Event' personally by JEFF BEZOS, Founder of Amazon.^[1]

Non-notable award. of non-notable awards received by the organization, its people, or products, Fails WP:CORPDEPTH scope_creep^Talk 10:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is also the only Indian brand ever to be featured in ‘OPRAH’S FAVOURITE THINGS’ two years in a row (2018 & 2019) ^[2] . It also featured on extremely popular 'Ellen Degeneres Show'^[3] in the US in Feb, 2020 and has also partnered with the pop diva, Mariah Carey.^[4]

These are WP:PROMOTIONAL references and fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOTADVERTISEMENT. scope_creep^Talk 10:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. VAHDAM, a INR 100-crore brand now, has also been featured on National Television in the USA including Good Morning America and View Your Deal.^[5]

This is an advertisement and is non-RS per WP:NOTADVERTISEMENT. scope_creep^Talk 10:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. The founder, Bala Sarda, has been featured on the Forbes 30 Under 30 (Asia), Entrepreneur 35 Under 35 & Business World 40 Under 40 List and was recently awarded the Entrepreneur of the year (FMCG,) 2020 by Entrepreneur India.^[6]

That is deprecated source. X of Y articles are ultra-low quality sources and have been deprecated by Reliable Sources. The award is non-notable. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. of non-notable awards received by the organization, its people, or products,

5. Vahdam Teas being featured by almost every prominent publisher, in their 2019 Reccomended Things or Annual Gift Guide! (A few links below)

Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes-personal-shopper/2019/12/15/best-gifts-under-50/#15a7f887182d

Its deprecated and is non-RS. scope_creep^Talk 10:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Sugar https://www.popsugar.com/fitness/photo-gallery/46876667/image/46877271/Vahdam-Turmeric-Herbal-Tea-Assorted-Gift-Set

Pop Sugar https://www.popsugar.com/smart-living/photo-gallery/46869582/image/46873491/Vahdam-Turmeric-Herbal-Tea-Assorted-Gift-Set

Good Housekeeping https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/holidays/gift-ideas/g4079/last-minute-holiday-gifts/?slide=22

Best Products https://www.bestproducts.com/eats/drinks/g25617429/delicious-chai-tea-brands/

Motherly https://www.mother.ly/shop/holidays-shopping-guides/new-year-resolutions-product-guide?rebelltpage=13#rebelltitem13

Esquire https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/g1349/cheap-gifts-under-25/?slide=7

The Epoch Times https://www.theepochtimes.com/6-food-gift-ideas-for-mom-this-mothers-day_2891084.html

Food & Wine https://www.foodandwine.com/holidays-events/gift-basket-holiday-gift-ideas

Romper https://www.romper.com/p/12-gifts-under-15-that-are-perfect-for-literally-anyone-on-your-list-19279865

Prevention https://www.prevention.com/life/g29628441/best-gifts-for-hostess/

Town & Country Mag https://www.townandcountrymag.com/style/home-decor/g29726896/weekly-covet-november-8-2019/

Harpers Bazaar https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/travel-dining/g8143/best-food-gifts/?slide=20

Martha Stewart https://www.marthastewart.com/1095618/your-one-stop-holiday-gift-guide-parents-laws

Harpers Bazaar https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/travel-dining/g8143/best-food-gifts/?slide=21

Pure Wow https://www.purewow.com/wellness/gifts-for-people-who-are-always-cold

The Strategist https://nymag.com/strategist/article/gifts-for-astrology-lovers-astrologers.html

Best Products https://www.bestproducts.com/eats/food/g2079/tasty-food-gifts-for-foodies/

The Kitchn https://www.thekitchn.com/oprah-favorite-things-2019-food-22968474

CNET https://www.cnet.com/news/oprahs-favorite-things-amazon-2019/

INSIDER https://www.insider.com/oprah-favorite-things-list-holiday-gift-ideas-2019-11

FOX Business https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/oprahs-favorite-things-under-50

These are all advertisements and fails WP:NOTADVERTISEMENT. scope_creep^Talk 10:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6. COVID Initiatives - Tea Estate Workers Relief Fund By Vahdam Teas ^[7],

$100,000 interest-free loan programme to help partner tea estates ^[8]

standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

7. Vahdam Teas is also a certified Climate Neutral and Plastic Neutral brand. It measures its overall carbon and plastic footprint ; offsets it through investing in pro-environmental initiatives or funding the removal of an equivalent amount of plastic from the environment; and also learning how to reduce the brand’s overall footprint.

A good thing, but not an indication of notability.

8. The Founder Bala Sarda has been featured on many of the world's top Business Information and Publishing web portals. (Some References herewith)

https://medium.com/@balasarda/highlights

NON-RS per WP:NOT as it is user-generated.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/289258

An interview by the founder. Not a BLP article.

https://www.thequint.com/news/world/meet-5-indians-on-forbes-30-under-30-asia-list

Non-RS. Has been deprecated. Never use Forbes. It is ultra-low quality junk.

https://www.vccircle.com/tag/bala-sarda/all

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of a capital transaction, such as raised capital,

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tea-entrepreneur-brews-a-revolution-h0vrjqkdx

Another interview style reference in the Times.

I believe the references mentioned here are seemingly enough to prove the Brand and CEO's Notability. On the other hand one of the similar Brand Teabox has the wiki article page without much references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naman2685 (talk • contribs)

All the references are a mix of raw advertisements, press releases, corporate endorsements, Non-RS and deprecated sources that fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:NOT and WP:NOTADVERTISEMENT. They are all dependent and are typical of a company that is advertising heavily and using PR to push its brand. No actual sources have been presented. scope_creep^Talk 10:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ {.{cite web |title=Meet The 10 Winners Of Amazon SMB Awards |url=https://inc42.com/buzz/meet-the-10-winners-of-amazon-smb-awards/ |website=Inc42.com}}
^ "Oprah's Favorite Things 2018".website=oprah.com/
^ "Ellen DeGeneres' New 'Be Kind By Ellen' Subscription Box".
^ "Shop Mariah Carey's holiday must-haves on Amazon".
^ "'GMA' Deals & Steals on self-care products from small businesses".
^ "Virtual Awards - 10th Annual awards for Entrepreneurship & Startups".
^ "Tea Estate Workers Relief Fund By Vahdam Teas".
^ "Vahdam Teas plans $100,000 interest-free loan programme for partner estates".

Delete per nomination. User:scope_creep is also right about that Forbes article. As explained at WP:RSP, Forbes' reliability is effectively two-tier: staff articles at Forbes are reliable, but "guest" articles are definitely not. The rest of the coverage demonstrate only that the company has worked very hard to get itself mentioned as widely as possible, but there's definitely a lack of significant, independent coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH etc. For notability we need quality, not quantity: see WP:NOTEBOMB for more about that. Captain Calm (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Could not find anything that isn't shourced off press releases. – SD0001 (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Completely failing to understand what is considered ‘notable’ since none of this is being considered worthy enough.

1. A standalone Forbes feature which was a part of the COVER story and was a print edition as well - not being considered notable.(Wikipedia clearly mentions that’ Articles that have also been published in the print edition of Forbes are excluded, and are considered generally reliable)

2. The founder being featured on the Forbes 30 under 30 Asia list - not being considered notable(the Wikipedia page of Forbes says that ‘The magazine is well known for its lists and rankings’ and still this is not being considered notable).

3. VAHDAM Teas has been mentioned in the wikipedia page of the founder, Bala Sarda’s College, Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaheed_Sukhdev_College_of_Business_Studies - Not being considered?

4. Wikipedia itself has a page for ‘Oprah’s favorite Things and VAHDAM has been featured 2 years in a row on ‘Oprah’s Favorite Things’ - not being considered notable.

5. The founder being personally awarded ‘Global SMB of the year’ on behalf of VAHDAM Teas by Jeff Bezos, the richest man on earth and founder of one of the most valued companies in the world, Amazon - not being considered notable.

6. VAHDAM has been mentioned twice by People Magazine which is considered a reliable source on wikipedia (https://people.com/celebrity/mariah-carey-holiday-gift-guide-amazon/)

7. VAHDAM has been mentioned by Buzzfeed which is considered a reliable source on wikipedia (https://www.buzzfeed.com/asiawmclain/35-awesome-mothers-day-gifts-that-are-100-quarantine)

8. VAHDAM has a full article on Bloomberg which is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia (https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2018-10-01/vahdam-teas-the-fastest-growing-premium-tea-brand-raises-us-2-5-million-in-series-b-funding

9. 10. VAHDAM is a certified carbon neutral brand. The certification has been awarded by an independent body - Climate Neutral and visible on their website - https://www.climateneutral.org/brand/vahdam-teas

A similar company Teabox has its page on Wikipedia and it has been backed by references only from the following publications - telegraph India, TechCrunch, Entrepreneur, Bloomberg, business today.VAHDAM has also been covered by ALL these publications. The company has been passionately selling teas and never focused too much on PR. It does not even have a PR agency. Almost all the above features are organic and NONE of it is a paid ‘promotion whatsoever.

Some more Non PR mentions For Your Reference: (All mentioned sites have their respective Wikipedia pages)

https://fee.org/articles/tea-lovers-have-it-made-thanks-to-markets/ https://www.specialtyfood.com/news/article/vahdam-teas-receives-the-2019-sofitm-bronze-award-125904/ https://angel.co/company/vahdam-teas https://www.ketto.org/fundraiser/vahdamteas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naman2685 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:REFBOMB. scope_creep^Talk 11:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Calling this keep instead of NC because the sources provided seem to have satisfied everybody who commented after they were presented. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jürgen Handke

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

Largely unsourced puff piece for a professor who does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. dewiki article is also largely unsourced. His book ([37]), published in 2012, has been cited 106 times according to Google Scholar. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It certainly reads like a puff piece in multiple areas. Also largely unsourced. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some reviews for possible WP:NCREATIVE case: [38][39][40][41]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Long book reviews are a good start to establish notability here, let's give it some more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 08:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:NAUTHOR and the sources Russ found. The sourcing and POV problems can be handled with cleanup tags. – Joe (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the reviews listed by Russ go a long way to establishing WP:NAUTHOR. As Joe mentions, this should be tagged for cleanup, but not deleted. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robslee Primary School

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS There was a lot of routine coverage about the school closing. // Timothy :: talk 08:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. A a s i m 08:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete long standing consensus is that virtually no primary school is notable. There is nothing in any way suggesting this school is an exception to that general rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally agree with above comments. A primary school existing does not mean it has notability that would warrant an article. I see no sign here of the sort of special significance or sustained coverage that would make it notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page. Dunarc (talk) 20:03, 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 08:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quarff Primary School

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS // Timothy :: talk 08:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have long help that the vast majority of primary schools are not notable. There is no reason to see this school as an exception to that general rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above, primary schools in themselves are not usually considered notable enough to have articles. There is nothing in this article that would suggest this school had outstanding circumstances or had received a level of coverage to make it notable. I think that recording its existence in the Quarff article would seem to me to be sufficient. Dunarc (talk) 19:57, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London Street Primary School

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS // Timothy :: talk 08:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. May or may not be notable as a school, but the building is certainly notable as a Category B listed building per WP:GEOFEAT.[42] -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete the article is about the school which clearly does not meet any notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says the article can only be about the school and not the clearly notable building? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not a clearly notable building. It's an nice old building. Read the report [43]. There is nothing notable about this building. "Presumed" is not a guarantee of notability - guidelines are very clear about this. "may be" does not mean "always". If you're going to claim it's notable based on a presumtion, that presumption can be questioned and in that case you need to provide evidence of notability. This means you need multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources that demonstrate why this is notable. A description of a building is not evidence of notability, especially when the single source states, "These records are not definitive historical accounts or a complete description of the building(s)". // Timothy :: talk 16:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable suggests that there is "nothing notable about this building"? In what way does These records are not definitive historical accounts or a complete description of the building(s) suggest that this means the building is not notable; it's merely a disclaimer added to every single entry on the database. Surely you're not seriously suggesting that Scotland's official heritage agency is not a reliable source? Sorry, but this deletion mania is getting out of hand. How on earth do you think this is serving Wikipedia? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The source you're depending on shows that there is nothing notable about the building; its a nice old building that is being preserved. I'm sure it's reliable and it says "These records are not definitive historical accounts or a complete description of the building(s)" They're reliable and they state the record is not complete and not definitive. If you think this is notable, then add multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources that address the topic directly and in depth showing its notability. If this is "clearly notable" this should be easy to do. I don't believe these sources exist. Why do you think Wikipedia has notability guidelines? I am not suggesting anything about "presumed to the notable", I am stating the fact that a presumption is not a guarantee of notability. I am challenging that presumption and if you can provide multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources that address the subject directly and in depth, then the article will be kept. The hyperbole is not necessary and I have an 85% [44] match rate on my AfD votes, I'm far from perfect (and I nominate, not just vote),but its far better than your 61% [45] (which doesn't appear to have any nominations). No one person is the judge, it is up the the community to decide based on guidelines and policy. // Timothy :: talk 17:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the building's listing in Scotland as Category B: "Buildings of special architectural or historic interest which are major examples of a particular period, style or building type." WP:GEOFEAT applies: "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable." --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aird Primary School

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS // Timothy :: talk 07:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable primary school, which is almost all primary schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above, primary schools in themselves are not usually notable enough to have articles. There is nothing here to suggest the existence of outstanding circumstances or significant coverage which would make me think that this school is an exception to the rule. Recording its existence in the Point, Lewis article would seem to me to be sufficient. However the dates of its existence could perhaps be added there. Dunarc (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination happily withdrawn per new sources from Girth Summit (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 10:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16 Prince Street, Peterhead

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS // Timothy :: talk 07:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable as a Category B listed building per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOFEAT states "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Without WP:SIGCOV, GEOFEAT does not establish notability. --RexxS (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You're ignoring the bit above which says Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable! The bit you quoted applies to buildings which do not meet that criterion, otherwise what would be the point of even saying it? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because a presumption is not a guarantee of notability. If it's clearly notable, why don't you just provide multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources? // Timothy :: talk 10:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would normally presume that a Grade B listed building would be notable, but that is by no means certain in every case. I hope we can all agree that if there are no sources beyond "simple statistics" that the threshold isn't reached. The two related sources referencing the building's entry in the national register establish the Grade B status, but surely they contain nothing beyond simple statistics? One ref even has a note: "This site record was created to indicate a building which is, or was, listed but for which Canmore holds no supplementary information". --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even a brief description is more than "simple statistics", surely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The "brief description"[46][47] comprises the name, the location, the category, and the number on the register. What would "simple statistics" look like if not those? "The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature ... in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability." --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because a presumption is not a guarantee of notability. Then please enlighten me as to why that criterion was even included in guideline in the first place. If it was superseded by the second criterion there would be no point in specifying that heritage buildings are presumed to be notable, would there. What you're basically saying is that you don't personally agree with the criterion so you think it should just be ignored. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:GEOFEAT never mentions "heritage buildings". The first bullet point deals with "Artificial geographical features" that have heritage status; the second deals with "Buildings" that have historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. There is an intersection between the two, but there would have been no point in having the second criterion if it were superseded by the the first, would there? Presumption is not a guarantee; WP:NGEO #Sources is very clear that "This guideline specifically excludes maps and various tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." In what way do the two mutually referential sources in the article do anything more than establish existence?
        Now stop personalising this. I have no dog in this fight and I didn't write the guidelines. Have a good think about who is actually stating personal opinion here and who is just quoting our guidance. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep In addition to the sources listed in the article, this building has an entry in Walker and Woodworth's volume "Aberdeenshire: North and Moray" (part of the Pevsner Architectural Guides series), and the Historic Environment Scotland listing's bibliography gives two further offline sources, and I'd be very surprised if there isn't a description of it in the relevant RIAS guide to the region, but I don't have any of these on my shelf. There's also an entry here with more description. To be honest, I'd be surprised if any Category B listed building failed GNG, but this one certainly doesn't - you just need to know where to look for the sources. I'll try to find some time later on to expand on this based on the sources that I do have access to. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment I've added some description of the building based on my offline source; I don't doubt that this could be expanded further with access to the offline sources given in the bibliography at its listing documents, or if one were able to access a copy of the "Banff and Buchan" RIAS architectual guide by Charles McKean, which will certainly mention this. I'd be grateful if TimothyBlue would be willing review what I've added so far, and consider withdrawing this nom. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Girth Summit, Yes that reference shows it meets NBUILD for architectural significance. Yale University Press, it must have sources. Nomination happily withdrawn (I'd formerly change my vote but someone told me they don't like that, but consider this a Happy Keep vote, not a sad surrender :). // Timothy :: talk 09:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, per Girth Summit Seasider53 (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. The sources BD2412 have provided have convinced me. (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 01:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph Academy (Adrian, Michigan)

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS // Timothy :: talk 07:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't make school articles lightly; they must have significant intersections with notable people or other historical importance. In this case, the institution existed for over a hundred years, had an enrollment of over 500 students at a time when this was well above the size of the typical school, and was in several respects a predecessor institution of Siena Heights University. Newspapers.com returns over 1,200 hits for St. Joseph Academy in Adrian from Michigan news sources alone, and another hundred from Wisconsin, so coverage extends beyond its home state. If not kept, then merge into Siena Heights University, which was established by the same order and which now encompasses the building. BD2412 T 13:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- An additional note, the school is well covered in Jun Tsuji, The Soul of DNA: The True Story of a Catholic Sister and Her Role in the Greatest Scientific Discovery of the Twentieth Century (Llumina, 2004), p. 43-47, viewable in preview on Amazon.com. This source further describes it as a substantial institution that quickly developed an excellent reputation going beyond its locality, and provides additional references in support of this evaluation. BD2412 T 15:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Siena Heights University. I can see this being a viable option. A search of newspapers.com shows a lot of advertisements and some WP:ROUTINE coverage. The Soul of DNA is not about the building; it is about a person and an event; the book mentions the building, but does not address the subject (the building) directly or in depth. The age or size of the school is not a basis for notability. // Timothy :: talk 16:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your assessment of the source. It has a solid three+ pages specifically and solely on this institution, including more than half a page just describing the building that was initially used, with its parlors and half-glass folding doors, five music rooms with ceilings "handsomely decorated with paintings of Beethoven, Liszt, Mozart, Wagner, and other eminent composers", other rooms, halls, dorms, and a chapel described with the various colors in which it was painted, and even the size and shading of the grounds. That aside, I spent fifteen minutes looking for sources and found that, so additional searching can be expected to yield more. As noted, the book cited provides references for its various claims and substantial quotes about the school; those other sources therefore exist. BD2412 T 16:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I understand your point. I agree its a nice building and agree because a notable event took place there it will be mentioned. What I am saying is the subject (the school or the building) itself is not notable. It could be included in an article about the notable event that took place there, or in the article about Siena Heights University. // Timothy :: talk 17:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to go back and forth on this further. My comment stands, and I will look for Tsuji's precedent sources in the next few days. BD2412 T 17:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One last note: I have found a book, Mary Philip Ryan, Amid the Alien Corn (Jones Wood Press, 1967), which is primarily about the school. It also cites some additional sources for coverage of the school. BD2412 T 16:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BD2412. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 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. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marvelous (rapper)

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

Does not meet GNG or NARTIST. Sourced to his own website and copies of PR that end with a call to follow him on Instagram, Youtube, and Twitter. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of any coverage beyond self-published or promotional sources. Fails WP: NMUSICIAN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep this article is well referenced. I have provided more citations. 75kbps (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even with the additional sources, all the footnotes appear to be press releases or advertorials. To demonstrate notability, the page is going to need some independent, reliable sources as set out under WP: NMUSICIAN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Doesn't seem to pass any aspect of WP:MUSICBIO. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Despite there being sources to reliable publications like Hip Hop Weekly and The Source, the mentions are all short paragraph-length articles that are highly promotional. I don't see an indication of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne High School (Oklahoma)

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS // Timothy :: talk 07:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not enough coverage to show notability. We have come to realize that the idea every high school in existence is notable was come up without understanding how truly small some high schools are. This place has a high school enrollment of 170 and is not receiving substantial coverage. There is no reason to have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 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 keep. Tone 08:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Duke

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Note that "Dave Duke" is ambiguous with "David Duke", the title of two other articles. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable college coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Division I head coaches are generally presumed to be notable. Plus meets GNG per [48] [49] [50] [51]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NCOLLATH "Served as a full-time (as opposed to interim) head coach for NCAA division I/University Division football (since the establishment of divisions in 1957), men’s basketball (since 1957) or women’s basketball (since 1982)." The article needs sources, though. Rikster2 (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NCOLLATH #5, plus the sources Eddy found. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like article was substantially beefed up and had RS added. Passes GNG. SportsGuy789 (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NCOLLATH. Rlendog (talk) 15:14, 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 08:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Charter School

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS. Article contains no references or external links to assist with WP:BEFORE // Timothy :: talk 07:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we very rarely accept that elementary schools are notable. I see no reason to do so when the article itself is sourced only to the schools own website. Wikipedia was not meant to be a directory of websites. After having seen over 100 articles in the last week that are only sourced to the subject's own website, I am beginning to wonder if in reality Wikipedia is functionally just a very incomplete website directory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barre Town Middle and Elementary School

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS // Timothy :: talk 07:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the long standing consensus is almost nothing that is not at least a high school is notable, nothing suggests an exemption to that rule here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Barre (town), Vermont per WP:ATD. MB 01:14, 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 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. Same comment as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monarch Learning Center -- RoySmith (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riverbank Language Academy

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions [52], nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS. Article contains no references or external links to assist with WP:BEFORE // Timothy :: talk 06:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia really needs to create a clear program to remove in an expeditious way all articles sourced only to the website of the subject of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Riverbank Unified School District. MB 01:16, 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 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. This could certainly be added to Redding School District, but given the lack of sourcing, a straight merge doesn't seem viable. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch Learning Center

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions [53], nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS. The article contains no references or external links to assist with WP:BEFORE // Timothy :: talk 06:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no 3rd party sources. This is also an insanely small school, less than 150 students at a time. If this school was notable, than every elementary school ever at least that had existed since 2000 and created a website would be notable. We do not want to go down that path, that path leads to madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Redding School District per WP:ATD. MB 01:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't believe unreferenced material should be merged into articles, but I have no objection to a merge if a reference is added by the person doing the merge. // Timothy :: talk 01:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 01:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chidozie Nwankwo

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

New page review: Bio of a successful businessman who is about to run for political office but otherwise has no claim to notability. There are sources, but nothing substantial. Definitely not notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — @Mccapra Good catch! Possible UPE of a non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in any Nigerian reliable source. You know it’s a serious problem when a before search only shows a Facebook page & self published sources.Celestina007 18:16, 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 08:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Young K.

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

Very, very mysterious. This subject has a—probably self-generated—profile ~~on the Saatchi Gallery website~~ ([54]), a website ([55]), and a self-published book on Amazon ([56]). But I can find nothing independent (nothing in Artforum that I could see, although the article cites it) so appears to fail WP:NARTIST. Not to be confused with Young K. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a hoax. I think the Artforum citation is fake. Jenifer P. Borum (I would have given a bonus point for Jenifer in stead of Jennifer) hasn't written reviews for Artforum since 2009. He claims (on his saatchiart.com profile) to have exhibited at Mission, Rastovski and Intar Gallery. The only artist I can think of that comes close to that is Felix Gonzalez-Torres. Also, note the username of the creator, Dennis K. K. Yeung and the author of the saatchiart profile dennisyeung.
BTW saatchiart.com is NOT the Saatchi Gallery. It's a long story, but see https://news.artnet.com/art-world/charles-saatchi-sues-saatchi-art-297042 for example. Vexations (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The only substantive edits are by the page's creator, who hasn't edited any other pages. Looks like a DUCK to me. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject of this (likely autobiographic) article does not pass WP's criteria for notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST, WP:BASIC. Netherzone (talk) 14:40, 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. After discounting sockpuppet !votes, there's a general consensus that the corp is not notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wordeep

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

Covert advertising. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND scope_creep^Talk 06:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See the Talk page for the article creator's rationale opposing the article's speedy-deletion. (The CSD itself was removed shortly afterwards by another newly-edited account.) AllyD (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC}

Its cool for a change that a rationale has been left behind. scope_creep^Talk 07:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This page is not unambiguously promotional, because these kinds of innovative technologies are extremely significant to millions of people who write and communicate online. This Wikipedia article and articles about similar technologies (e.g., Grammarly) help individuals gain access to understanding the existing technologies as of today. I agree that editors should join in to elaborate on these topics, for example, add benchmarks and statistics, but still, the entries have a solid justification for existence. . Livingangelusa (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Livingangelusa and Stevegrtz, could you point out what you feel are the two strongest sources? Consider looking at wp:N to see how 'strong' is defined. Jlevi (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert in measuring that, but Jpost and thinkcomputers are pretty known. Livingangelusa (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources are junk blogs and press releases, fails WP:NCORP. This article is in the Jerusalem Post, but it's clearly a blatant advertisement. Googling the author's name reveals that he's a digital marketer and SEO guy. Spicy (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Grammar checker: This sort of cloud software - grammar check / spell check / proof reader is only going to increase in time. There will be more and more demand for this. Whiteguru (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps it need List of these types of articles. scope_creep^Talk 14:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Number of strong references shouldn't be the sole metric for existence on Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia is not a place for only rich entities that spend millions on PR like other grammar correction companies in this field. Innovative solutions and tech-related articles should be publicly available, and we should give a chance for more contributors to add more content to them. Stevegrtz (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a SPA, you probably don't know that the number of valid references are the sole metric per WP:SOURCES and WP:NOTABILITY. There are many many of these types of AI companies, they are very generic, its much like bitcoin/bitcoin miner companies were 2-3 years ago. Your not even first to market, in this particular market, by a long way. So to say that your innovative is complete nonsense. It fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH by a long way. scope_creep^Talk 23:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know what's your profession, but I am dealing with NLP and machine learning for quite a few years, and I can tell you that we see huge breakthroughs every year. Being the first one, means nothing. --Stevegrtz (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a software engineer. I did a machine learning course at Columbia a couple of years ago. You must see it from our viewpoint. AI/machine learning companies are under huge investment (thankfully), so on Wikipedia we see dozens of the these types articles every week, and differentiating them is difficult. From an external viewpoint, due to the lens of PR, from what of a particular or better phrase, they seem all the same, and the only thing that differentiates them is how good their references are. scope_creep^Talk 15:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: votes by sock puppets struck. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stevegrtz. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is insufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to justify an article about this company at this time. I don't even see enough independent coverage to justify mentioning the subject at the grammar checker article. Mz7 (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 10:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Project Bay Cat

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

Not notable. Normal Op (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I was able to find the following which suggests GNG is met, and that this is a noteworthy project that is widely cited in case studies for future projects: Project Bay Cat Helps San Francisco Bay's Rock-Dwelling Kitties, Feral cat program succeeds, Trap-Neuter-Return Effectively Stabilizes and Reduces Feral Cat Populations, It”s still a cat”s world on Mare Island, BIRDERS, CAT PEOPLE TEAM IN CALIFORNIA “PROJECT BAY CAT”, Prowling the Divide, CASE STUDIES OF SUCCESSFUL TNR PROGRAMS, Comments on the Environmental Assessment for the San Nicolas Island Seabird Restoration Project, Animals and the Law: NY Gov. Cuomo Vetoes TNR Bill, I.6 – Magazine Column, Winner: Cimeron Morrissey, “Cat Champions”, Cat Fancy. Newspaper, Interview with Cimeron Morrissey, Bay Area Programs, For local woman, feral cat obsession leads to activism, Cat Tales, What to do with feral felines?, Trap, neuter, return catching on for stray cats.Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't just dump links here; edit the article if the links are appropriate for it. Normal Op (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not clean-up, but it is where sourcing is noted. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the non-trivial coverage in sources like: San Mateo Daily Journal, The San Francisco Examiner interview about a 5k prize and a documentary about Project Bay Cat. The East Bay Times article, the Catster Magazine article seems to be non-trivial and it is a subscription based magaizine. Lightburst (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the edge on this one. Leaning Weak Delete, but willing to change if there's a bit more to be found. Most of the sources above do not seem to be from independent reliable sources providing in-depth coverage but from blogs, advocacy organizations, governments, etc. Some are brief mentions and the best of the bunch are just local coverage. They add up to some extent, but it seems like WP:CORP needs a bit more. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added one reference (to Cat Fancy magazine), but I think there is more coverage as listed above - enough to pass the notability bar. Tacyarg (talk) 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 keep. Especially considering the nomination was withdrawn (at least I'm treating it as withdrawn). A move to a different title can certainly happen as a normal editing function. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Club, London

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

Appears to fail WP:NORG and WP:GNG. There are hits in mainstream media (e.g., [57], [58], [59]) but all strike me as either routine, promotional, or sensationalist. Stub since 2006, originally about a final club at Harvard of the same name. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we really need to prune out all these articles sourced only to the subject's own website. I believe there are hundreds if not thousands of such articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm neutral about the notability of the club, but the building is Grade II-listed,[60] so meets WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp.Djflem (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion as yet on notability, but must point out that this article was hijacked in 2007, having originally being about Fox Club. Someone who likes doing that sort of thing should sort out the histories of these articles. I also note that the club in London was founded in the 1960s, not in the time of Charles James Fox. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, perhaps we should hijack it again to be about the building/address per Necrothesp and Djflem, since the club seems fairly unremarkable …… AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is about a club, not a building. Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. // Timothy :: talk 04:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT as a Grade II listed building and repurpose the article to be about the building that happens to be currently occupied by the club. How best to do this can be discussed on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, repurpose, and presumably move to 45 and 46 Clarges Street or similar per Malcolmxl5. I'd withdraw but don't think I can since there have been delete votes. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida#District 23. After extended time for discussion, consensus is clear that this should not exist as an article. BD2412 T 02:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Perelman

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

Normally, a defeated candidate for a primary election is non-notable. The question here is whether the local coverage of the campaign is sufficient in this case, and whether the inclusion of the material about the police report meets BLP. I have no fixed opinion, and leave it to the community. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida#District 23, the only SIGCOV available is local coverage, and per my completely unsubstantiated personal criteria for political candidates that is not enough to establish notability. The police report stuff isn't even about her, it's about Wasserman Schultz. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do believe the article meets the WP:N WP:RS WP:POV criteria. While as DGG notes, the candidate lost her primary, I haven't really seen that mentioned in any notability discussions so far. My understanding is that WP:N is about coverage in WP:RS. She did receive a fair amount of media coverage, including regional, national and new media. My understanding is that regional sources aren't automatically rejected as WP:RS. Florida's 2nd largest newspaper Sun Sentinel ran a profile on her. Perhaps someone can help with additional citations? Admittedly, I am biased, since I created/seeded the article :-) Stefania0 (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)(Un-striking this !vote because article creator Stefania0 claims to be a housemate rather than a sock of Viktorpp. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Redirect per NPOL and BLP1E, non-notable failed candidate, article created August 24 with "controversy" section to WP:COATRACK criticism of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HouseOfChange I appreciate you taking the time to contribute to the article deletion discussion. However, your ad hominem about me is unseemly; or maybe I misunderstand, would you mind explaining? Stefania0 (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion discussion concerning an article, stick to the topic at hand. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. And thank you for withdrawing the personal attack. I really do appreciate it.Stefania0 (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she was trounced in the primary, that is pretty much a sign of non-notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert She WAS 100% trounced in the primary. However, that has nothing to do with WP:N. If impact were a criterion, the celebrities who are famous for being famous, e.g. Kardashians, would never have a place on Wikipedia :-D Stefania0 (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For political notability you need to actual hold office, not just run for one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply not true. WP:NPOL says a failed candidate is notable, as long as she meets WP:GNG, which requires only WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS.Stefania0 (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida#District 23. Failed candidates rarely meet WP:NPOL. Coverage in RS is mostly run of the mill campaign coverage. Bkissin (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But they can meet WP:GNG, which requires only WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS to be considered WP:N. Run of the mill campaign coverage in WP:RS is still verifiable, reliable, independent coverage. Stefania0 (talk)

Delete or redirect/merge per above based on WP:POLOUTCOMES there is nothing here but an average lawyer with a losing campaign for the congressional seat for Florida's 23rd district seat. There is a lot of WP:INHERITED involved in the article. Lightburst (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Politics can be contentious, especially in election years. Hence, there's always passionate arguments about Wikipedia pages of political figures. If you support a candidate, you may feel they are WP:N and deserve a page. If you oppose the candidate, you may feel the opposite. WP:NPOL says candidates who have won, hold, or have held international, national, or state–wide office are automatically presumed to be notable - so for these candidates, notability is inarguable. For all other cases, it depends on community discussions and discretion. I think the key is to consider, without being WP:POINTy, how other candidates are treated in similar situations, esp. to honestly ask ourselves if we support the page, would we still do so if we opposed the candidate, and if we oppose the page, would we still do so if we supported the candidate? Do Andrew Yang or Amy McGrath or Michelle Caruso-Cabrera or deserve Wikipedia pages, considering they haven't won and all their significant independent WP:RS coverage starts post entry into their respective races? Luckily WP:NPOL offers some guidance: 1. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage are automatically presumed to be notable, even if they have never won an election or held an office or membership of a legislative body. More relevant to the case at hand, "Just being ...an unelected candidate for political office...can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." The key to WP:GNG is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Campaign related coverage of the candidate IS still coverage of candidate, as long as it is in independent sources. In the case of Perelman, the key question raised by DGG is really whether regional news sources can be considered WP:RS. I would contend it should. In fact, national news media, particularly cable news and network news, largely depend on regional media (in addition to agencies) since they've all downsized their local and beat reporters. Some of the biggest news, e.g. Jeffrey Epstein came from these local news media. 130.226.41.9 (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)(Un-striking !vote by IP that states he is a friend rather than a sock of Viktorpp and Stefania0. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Replying to the speculation that people voting to delete do so because they dislike JP's political stance, several of those !voting "Delete" here have nevertheless !voted "Keep" at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marquita_Bradshaw, who also supports M4all and Green New Deal, and who also fails NPOL but (the difference!) Marquita Bradshaw is in fact notable per WP:BASIC while Jen Perelman is not notable by any standard. Thank you for coming to my TED talk. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request People arguing for GNG or ANYBIO, can you please give 3 examples of in-depth RS coverage by independent sources (i.e. not her college newspaper)? Because here are the article's current strongest sources IMO:

JP is "an attorney who grew up in south Florida" and otherwise nothing except routine campaign stuff. [61]
JP is "a wife, mother, attorney and co-chair of the juvenile justice committee for the Broward County League of Women Voters" and otherwise nothing except routine campaign stuff.[62]
JP's responses to a campaign questionnaire. [63]
JP "has a substantial online following but little cash to wage a traditional campaign fueled by advertisements and mailers" and the rest of the article is about how little grassroots enthusiasm she got. [64]

HouseOfChange (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in party primaries — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one. And the fact that some routine local campaign coverage happens to exist is not a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL: every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of local campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would always get the exemption and nobody would ever actually have to pass NPOL at all anymore. To qualify for an article, rather, a candidate has to pass one of two other tests: either (a) you can show that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason prior to standing as a candidate, or (b) you can show a credible reason to consider her candidacy a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for unsuccessful candidates, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. I call the former the Cynthia Nixon test, and I call the latter the Christine O'Donnell test — you can call them other things if you wish, but they're still the tests that a candidate has to pass to qualify for an article despite having lost the election. But neither of those tests have been passed here at all, so running in a primary that she lost does not make her permanently notable in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order - WP:NPOL specifically says politicians don't have to win office to be notable. In fact one of the two automatic presumption of notability criteria is for politicians who have never won or held office or membership of legislature. Anyway, that's just the pedantic part of me - I think in actual fact Bearcat and I are not that far off - your Christine O'Donnell test clarifies you don't believe politicians HAVE to win to be notable, though some might interpret your first sentence that way (and admittedly, I did). I haven't seen your two tests applied (by these or other names) in other discussions, nor seen them in WP guidelines. Cynthia Nixon test is uncontroversial but somewhat immaterial to bios, because if the person were notable, they should already have a Wikipedia bio, irrespective of their run. On Christine O'Donnell test, you and I differ. There are plenty of campaigns that do not get any coverage, let alone regional-level coverage. As long as the losing candidate's campaign received significant independent and reliable coverage, they should get a page. I don't see why politicians need to meet a higher standard of notability than other people. Also, WP:NTEMP indicates that someone could become notable due to one single event (a campaign in case of politicians) and then stay notable forever. All that said, I am willing to be convinced. I am big on WP:AGF as well as acting in good faith. 130.226.41.9 (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat addressed several possible notability criteria that JP could meet but, in his opinion, doesn't. WP:NPOL is a fall-back criterion for people who can't meet GNG aside from connection to a notable office. (Failing to win an election doesn't create such "connection.") If JP meets GNG, that is easy to show by listing independent RS (not Brand New Congress etc.) that discuss her "directly and in detail." I have looked for such sources but not found them. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say politicians can never be notable without winning — what I said is that because every candidate can always show some campaign coverage, the simple existence of that campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough to hand a candidate a "GNG"-based exemption from NPOL. It is possible for a candidate to be notable without winning, and I clarified exactly what the paths to that happening are: either (a) they were already notable enough for other reasons that their failure to win the election is irrelevant because of their preexisting notability (Cynthia Nixon), or (b) they can show a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as much more special than everybody else's candidacies (Christine O'Donnell). It's not our job to maintain an article about everybody who ever ran for political office and lost, so people aren't automatically notable just because their name happened to have appeared on a ballot — to keep an article about a non-winning candidate, we need to see a reason why their candidacy was uniquely much more notable than most other candidacies, not just verification of the candidacy itself. Bearcat (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. There is insufficient coverage for a BLP article. Most of the current reference set is dependent coverage, of a failed bid. There is nothing of significance outside that. scope_creep^Talk 10:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida#District 23. Not notable, WP:MILL, unsuccessful political candidate. However, there's no reason to delete, as it's a plausible search term. (t · c) buidhe 01:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida#District 23. // Timothy :: talk 05:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smartwings QS-1125

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

I do not see how that is compatible with WP:AVIATION "The accident was fatal to humans; or The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry." (but this is not my area of work here, so I leave it to the community to decide) DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely zero notability!! fails WP:GNG also WP:Notnews. Anecdotal stories are generally not retained in mainspace.--Petebutt (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, unnotable incident caused by pilot not following procedure. Can probably be merged into the various incident lists scattered about. Jumpytoo Talk 10:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This isn't even worth mentioning in another article. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Breaking news incident failing WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. The only lasting effect appears to be the pilot getting disciplined. Ongoing interest is limited to aviation blogs and YouTube. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Reporting aviation incidents and safety errors helps to prevent the more notable category of accidents. As for anecdotal, both the Czech air safety report and news reports document the incident. However, by WP notability this subject may not merit own article entry. Perhaps it can be used elsewhere. See 2 current mentions: (1) as as an example in Deliberate aircrew inaction under Aviation_safety#Human_factors, and; (2) reference to incident made within Smartwings article. • Yohananw (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that those reponsible for air safety do not use Wikipedia as a source to help prevent the more notable category of accidents. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 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 redirect to School District 73 Kamloops/Thompson. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brocklehurst Secondary School

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS. Article contains no references or external links to assist with WP:BEFORE // Timothy :: talk 05:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Delete'~~ Redirect to School District 73 Kamloops/Thompson. First, I would have said the article should be merged with School District 73 Kamloops/Thompson but it is already listed on that page, which has many red-linked primary schools that should probably be unlinked. Second, it was originally called "Brocklehurst Junior Secondary School", but the current article is titled "Brocklehurst Secondary School"; it appears to have been a secondary school years ago, but is now a middle school. We seldom keep articles about schools below the high school level, notwithstanding the rare lower-level school with multiple, solid WP:RS references, which this is not. Third, even when it was a secondary school, the only source that hints of notabiity is from a 1993 source listing an award of the Governor General's Academic Medal (Bronze) with no other explanation. I searched for "Brocklehurst Secondary School" on Newspapers.com, and of 49 hits, all but 10 were classified ads for teachers or administrative staff. About 5 were routine sports coverage, and the remaining articles were on news events (e.g., a bomb hoax, a construction lockout, a student walkout, an announcement of split schedules to accommodate 800 students in a space designed for 450 due to construction delays, and a report of 12 students' misbehavior on a field trip to a wildlife park about feeding wild animals chewing gum and other junk food, apparently a minor scandal locally). Nothing to see, here, folks. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 73 Kamloops/Thompson since it is mentioned there, unless anyone sources anything is this article which would then favor a Merge. MB 01:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't believe unreferenced material should be merged into articles, but I have no objection to a merge if a reference is added by the person doing the merge. // Timothy :: talk 01:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 01:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not see the merits of merging wih the school district article. Here's why: Brocklehurst Secondary School no longer exists, as it became Brocklehurst Middle Scool some years ago. ~~I think after deletion, Brocklehurst Secondary School should be changed to Brocklehurst Middle School on the district page, and~~ I have created an entry and a redirect for Brocklehurst Middle School, which is more helpful to readers. Note I did not create a red link on the district page, because WP does not keep virtually any school articles below secondary level--so what would be the point of a redlink? Unrequited hopefulness? Without stellar evidence of notability, almost all lower-level schools are only listed on district articles. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:29, 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 and redirect to List of educational institutions in Gorakhpur. There is consensus not to keep this article. As redirects are cheap and anyone may make a redirect, I’ll go with delete and redirect. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Springer Public School

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this school does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS The article contains no references. External links did not help establish notability and were no help in performing WP:BEFORE. // Timothy :: talk 04:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 10:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like every major role is held by a family member. I seriously tried looking. Nada. MaysinFourty (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indian public schools, even the ones that go up to grade 12, are seldom notable. This one appears to be no exception. SD0001 (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of educational institutions in Gorakhpur. Gab4gab (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of educational institutions in Gorakhpur where it is mentioned. MB 01:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Maria Gorret Senior Secondary School Katende

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this school does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS. The single reference in the article is a list of the worst schools, it does not meet WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 04:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Java Hurricane 04:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this school seems to be spelt wrongly in our article. I think it should be St. Maria Gorretti Senior Secondary School. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:19, 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. czar 04:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arpita Mukherjee (actress)

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

Reviewed as a part of NPP / new article curation. No indication of notability. List of works is largely non-notabale movies (no articles) and for the few that have articles, there was only a brief mentoin. No wp:gng-suitable coverage in the references or in my search. Addition concern is that editor's very first edit (of a lifetime 30 edits) was a fully formed article, and appears that their other 30 lifetime edits are creating similar promotional articles. North8000 (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nope, nope, nope, nope. No reliable coverage exists, let alone in-depth. Fails Wiki's nota guidelines. MaysinFourty (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not significant coverage. Other citations also fail reliability and sigcov. - hako9 (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV. As most films are non-notable, fails WP:NACTOR as well. --Ab207 (talk) 18:42, 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. czar 04:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaduvayil palli

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

Unsourced article on a masjid that appears to fail "WP:NCHURCH", WP:NORG, and WP:GNG. I found one passing mention in the Kerala Gazette, but that's it. Bringing this to AfD as it's possible I've missed something in an alternative spelling or a language I'm not familiar with. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a trust set up around a Sufi mystic, Kaduvayil Thangal Valiyullahi. The trust has education, orphanage, hospital, teachers college, all like this are there are likely separate articles to come. See http://www.ktctgroup.com/ for the full background. This article as present, is a copyvio of material on those pages. Whiteguru (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 18:08, 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 Draftify. Doesn't seem to be a clear indication that he meets GNG, but there has been an offer to develop it in draftspace. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yohei Azakami

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

Reviewed under NPP / new article curation. No indication of wp:notability. Zero wp:gng type sources in the article or findable in my search. Of the filmography works listed, ~2/3 of wp articles had no mention of him whatsoevrer, and the other ~1/3 had a brief mention/listing of him. North8000 (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He passes WP:GNG on Japanese articles and even has a profile on Oricon. Searching up his Japanese name brings up mentions from articles published by Animate Times, Kadokawa, and 4Gamer. I would also vouch for the article to be moved to drafts if sourcing is an issue. lullabying (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lullabying: Thanks for the offer to take this over as a draft. Meeting GNG means in-depth coverage by independent sources. If you meant that literally (i.e. already know of such coverage), why not add 1 or 2 of such sources right now? Two would make this a certain keep, and one might do it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per above. The material presented doesn't clearly show that the findings are more than passing mentions, but I'd WP:AGF that using the sources in draftspace will better convey the notability later. -2pou (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 13:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elissa (Canadian singer)

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

The article is unsourced, so first I tried to find a few reliable sources. I wasn't able to find any evidence of charting or touring by this artist. Her songs have under 100k views on YouTube and she doesn't have a notable amount of monthly listeners on digital platforms. Combining these factors together, I think the article needs to be deleted. Keivan.f^Talk 03:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is unreferenced and highly advertorialized, and documents nothing about her career that would hand her an "inherent" notability freebie under WP:NMUSIC in the absence of any valid reliable sourcing to support it. As with all of our inclusion standards for people, the notability test isn't so much what she did as it is how much media coverage she did or didn't get for it. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is always confusion for article writers, between those who write and create the music and their producers. They are rarely one and the same. I don't see much here. scope_creep^Talk 10:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ispat High School, Rourkela (Sector 16)

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this school does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS. Single reference in the article does not meet WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 02:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 10:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing showed up. (The ones in Sector 2 and 14 must be feeling left out.) Also, I now have doubts about its parent group too: Ispat High School! MaysinFourty (talk) 07:38, 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. czar 04:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Alternative Albums number ones of 2020

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

Also nominating:

One of many genre charts published/compiled by Billboard on a weekly basis, not all of which would meet the requirements of WP:LISTN. The chart itself has never received coverage in independent reliable sources, and from what I could find, never even received any fanfare from Billboard itself when it was introduced in 2007. No general significance for an album reaching number one on this chart. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Billboard publishes a lot of charts for various genres and releases around the world; each statistic is not automatically notable. I'm not sure why Wikipedia needs to copy-and-paste so much WP:RAWDATA from the Billboard website, without any outside references or additional context. I suppose these could be merged like List of Billboard Mainstream Rock number-one songs of the 2010s too though. Reywas92^Talk 04:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. We are not Billboard's publicist for boosting the value of its countless subgenre offerings. BD2412 T 05:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the chart itself doesn’t have its own article. Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not opposed to merging them into a single article, or one by decade, but there’s no reason this needs to be a separated out into one for every single year like this. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per all of the above Spiderone 08:08, 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 redirect to Northern Uproar#Discography. (non-admin closure) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 17:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All That Was Has Gone

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

I found this article in CAT:NN. I quickly found a detailed review in The Quietus, which I added to the article. I was hoping to find more acceptable coverage, so that I could demonstrate notability of the album. However, I haven't been finding any additional coverage. One good source does not a WP:NALBUM pass make. Taking this here instead of redirecting myself, as it's possible there's another source or two in existence, which would indicate notability. Everything besides the Quietus review was just either brief mentions in general articles about the band, or in unreliable sources. If another couple in-depth reliable sources can be found, I'll withdraw this. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Northern_Uproar#Discography per WP:CHEAP, though I suppose [65] could count as a second review if one were feeling generous? It doesn't look like much more than a blog to me though. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Northern_Uproar#Discography - about the only possible action available. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Northern Uproar#Discography: There's another review from God Is In The TV. Barely found any other sources about the album other than that. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:00, 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 08:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Engineering Robotics Contest

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient references; as per nom, no GNG Whiteguru (talk) 11:06, 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 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. Mz7 (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Mukasa

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

An article about a Ugandan TV anchor that seems to be native advertising. It was created by a now blocked suspected undisclosed paid editor who was running a sock farm. The references are not independent or substantial and seem obsessed with his love life. No good references found. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 01:29, 25 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, 2 September 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 keep. Tone 08:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zulfiqar Ahmad Naqshbandi

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a clear pass of WP:NAUTHOR per his books, and a leading Sufi shaykh of Naqshbandi oder. Copy edited, expanded the article with some references. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 14:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per WP:GNG--Irshadpp (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been further improved since the above nomination. Has 8 references now – newspaper and book references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:24, 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.

[1] {.{cite web |title=Meet The 10 Winners Of Amazon SMB Awards |url=https://inc42.com/buzz/meet-the-10-winners-of-amazon-smb-awards/ |website=Inc42.com}}

[2] "Oprah's Favorite Things 2018".website=oprah.com/

[3] "Ellen DeGeneres' New 'Be Kind By Ellen' Subscription Box".

[4] "Shop Mariah Carey's holiday must-haves on Amazon".

[5] "'GMA' Deals & Steals on self-care products from small businesses".

[6] "Virtual Awards - 10th Annual awards for Entrepreneurship & Startups".

[7] "Tea Estate Workers Relief Fund By Vahdam Teas".

[8] "Vahdam Teas plans $100,000 interest-free loan programme for partner estates".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]